What Climate change?

[DimPrawn]

But isn't that just noise on the long term climate? I mean, these sorts of changes are not significant over natural long term (100's or 1000's of years) cycles?

These temperature charts remind me of tick resolution financial charts. Over days and weeks there are large cycles in foreign exchange prices, and you are looking at some tick data over the last few seconds in relative terms, and trying to predict the future.

We are in an inter-glacial warm period, the overall long term natural trend is likely to be up...

PS

Plus ground stations are likely to be influenced by urban heat island effect. 100 years ago they were in rural areas, now many are surrounded by buildings, roads, cars and people generating localised smog and heat.

[BlasterBates]

But isn't that just noise on the long term climate? I mean, these sorts of changes are not significant over natural long term (100's or 1000's of years) cycles?

These temperature charts remind me of tick resolution financial charts. Over days and weeks there are large cycles in foreign exchange prices, and you are looking at some tick data over the last few seconds in relative terms, and trying to predict the future.

We are in an inter-glacial warm period, the overall long term natural trend is likely to be up...

PS

Plus ground stations are likely to be influenced by urban heat island effect. 100 years ago they were in rural areas, now many are surrounded by buildings, roads, cars and people generating localised smog and heat.

The trouble is they've adjusted the GISS past temperatures downwards and the modern temperatures get adjusted upwards. The graph is nonsense.


If you get raw data from temperature stations which have a long record then you can clearly see the effect of cycles eg Texas:



Climate scientists are beginning to recognise this:

https://curryja.files.wordpress.com/...r-15-final.pdf

A summary is presented here of recent data and
research that supports the importance of natural climate variability and calls into question the IPCC’s
conclusion that humans are the dominant cause of recent climate change.

In other words cycles do exist, and scientists are now saying the IPCC are probably wrong about anthropogenic climate change.

[pjclarke]

But isn't that just noise on the long term climate? I mean, these sorts of changes are not significant over natural long term (100's or 1000's of years) cycles?

The recent warming is more rapid than anything we can reconstruct in the paleo record, up around 1C so far, with worst-case projections in excess of a further 4C. The difference between an interglacial and an ice age is less than 7C.

We are in an inter-glacial warm period, the overall long term natural trend is likely to be up...

The Holocene. Actually a modest cooling trend.



All our infratructure, civilisation and agriculture was developed during a period of relative stability ....

Plus ground stations are likely to be influenced by urban heat island effect. 100 years ago they were in rural areas, now many are surrounded by buildings, roads, cars and people generating localised smog and heat.

Do you really think climate scientists are unaware of UHI? My plot was from NASA who only use rural stations when calculating trends. Among many other studies, the University of Berkeley set up a project (BEST) specifically to recalculate the surface trend, and investigate if station siting had introduced any bias, answer - nada.

The Urban Heat Island effect is real. Berkeley’s analysis focused on the question of whether this effect biases the global land average. Our UHI paper analyzing this indicates that the urban heat island effect on our global estimate of land temperatures is indistinguishable from zero.

Berkeley Earth

[pjclarke]

The trouble is they've adjusted the GISS past temperatures downwards and the modern temperatures get adjusted upwards. The graph is nonsense.

If that were true, then GISS would show a different long term trend to the satellite record, it does not.

Wood for Trees: Interactive Graphs

In other words cycles do exist, and scientists are now saying the IPCC are probably wrong about anthropogenic climate change.

One climate scientist is saying AGW may have been overestimated, the vast majority disagree.

Rabett Run: Curry vs. Curry
https://andthentheresphysics.wordpre...epw-testimony/
HotWhopper: Is Judith Curry a "slayer"?

[BlasterBates]

If that were true, then GISS would show a different long term trend to the satellite record, it does not.

Wood for Trees: Interactive Graphs



One climate scientist is saying AGW may have been overestimated, the vast majority disagree.

Rabett Run: Curry vs. Curry
https://andthentheresphysics.wordpre...epw-testimony/
HotWhopper: Is Judith Curry a "slayer"?

ah right yes of course how silly of us to read the testimony of a climate scientist rather than "Rabett Run" or "HotWhopper"'s blogs

Perhaps you'd better suggest to the US senate that they invite "Hot Whopper" to their hearing.

Here is some more on unadjusted temperatures:

Unadjusted data of long period stations in GISS show a virtually flat century scale trend | Watts Up With That?

[pjclarke]

ah right yes of course how silly of us to read the testimony of a climate scientist rather than "Rabett Run" or "HotWhopper"'s blogs

He said, before citing a blog. Try clicking some of the links. Eli Rabett is the nom de blog of a professor of physical chemistry at John Hopkins. I found his demonstration that Professor Curry's testimony on Antarctic ice is contradicted by her own published work quite interesting, even if you did not.

Perhaps you'd better suggest to the US senate that they invite "Hot Whopper" to their hearing.

Well they invited Andrew Dessler, who testified:

In conclusion, things are beginning to change rapidly. More and more frequently
it seems we pass another climate milestone — hottest year of the modern
temperature record, highest CO2 in perhaps a million years, etc. Because of
inertia in the climate system, every year we don’t take action commits us to about
2% more eventual warming [Allen and Stocker, 2014]. In other words, if we start
taking appropriate action today, we can limit global warming to 2°C. But, if we
wait 10 years to begin to reduce emissions, then the same level of effort will lead
to warming of 2.4°C. Time is not our friend in this problem. By the time
everyone agrees we have a problem, it is too late to do much about it.

The scientific community has been working on understanding the climate system
for nearly 200 years. In that time, a robust understanding of it has emerged. We
know the climate is warming. We know that humans are now in the driver’s seat
of the climate system. We know that, over the next century, if nothing is done to
rein in emissions, temperatures will likely increase enough to profoundly change
the planet. I wish this weren’t true, but it is what the science tells us.

Climate scientist to US Senate: 'Climate change is a clear and present danger' | Environment | The Guardian

[BlasterBates]

He said, before citing a blog. Try clicking some of the links. Eli Rabett is the nom de blog of a professor of physical chemistry at John Hopkins. I found his demonstration that Professor Curry's testimony on Antarctic ice is contradicted by her own published work quite interesting, even if you did not.



Well they invited Andrew Dessler, who testified:



Climate scientist to US Senate: 'Climate change is a clear and present danger' | Environment | The Guardian

Inquiry Launched Into Global Temperature Data Integrity | Watts Up With That?

[DodgyAgent]

Top scientists start to examine fiddled global warming figures - Telegraph

[pjclarke]

Inquiry Launched Into Global Temperature Data Integrity | Watts Up With That?

A think-tank chaired by an ex-chancellor of the exchequer and directed by a social anthropologist has launched an investigation into climate data adjustments led by an expert in the cell biology of human skin. So what?

Although the reasons for the adjustments that are made to the raw data are understood in broad terms, for many of the global temperature series the details are obscure and it has proved difficult for outsiders to determine whether they are valid and applied consistently. For all these reasons, the global surface temperature records have been the subject of considerable and ongoing controversy.

BS, the only controversy is manufactured. All the details of all the adjustments are published in the literature, and in the case of NASA and CRU, all the data and code used to generate the temperature series are open-source.

Menne et al 2009 and 2010 investigated micro-site issues and adjustments in the US and found no significant biases, Fall et al 2011 (Anthony Watts coauthor) came to the same conclusion. The Berkeley Earth project ditto, as part of a 6 month investigation after the 'Climategate' affair, a panel was able to recreate the CRU curve from publically available data in a matter of a few days, as have many interested amateurs. Indeed, if you download the raw and adjusted data for the Global Historical Climate Network, and plot them together it looks like this:



In other words, this data has already been 'investigated' to within an inch of its life and nothing suspicious has been found. Which is why, when they say

No timetable has been set for the panel to report.

what they mean is it will quietly disappear once they've found nothing untoward.

Just throwing sand in the air. Doubt is their product.

[DodgyAgent]

Having lost the moral case for redistribution of wealth via taxation as proven by the appalling way that money is managed and twice bankrupting the country on its last two periods in office the left have thrown their envy and guilt driven ideals onto the totem of climate change. "In the interests of fairness" and "helping the less well off" has switched to "saving the planet" as the cause with which to beat and control people into submitting themselves to their ideal of a fair and equal society (everyone is poor except themselves).

Once climate change is taken away from them what next? Top scientists start to examine fiddled global warming figures - Telegraph