A few days back were discussing metrics and whether they should be based on physical science or economics. If you are still interested the article by Odd Godal on page 47 of this report argues the case well;

http://www.ipcc-wg1.unibe.ch/p....._Final.pdf

Paleoclimate records are a very different issue since you have changes on much larger scales but also larger errors in both estimate of temperature and time.

However, on that perspective, you must agree that a doubling of CO2 in little over 200 years (a blink of the geological eye) is actually a major intervention on this system of slow climate cycles and feedbacks. It is going to have a major effect on the climate. In an extremely short period of time (geologically speaking, although in human terms a hundred years or so seems like a long time).

Now the question of what is ‘normal’ climate may be academic when you’re discussing changes over millions of years – but it is not academic when you’re discussing the last few hundred years (in other words, what we have built our civilisation around). In that context it is critical that we do understand how big the climate impact of our activities is likely to be. And taking 30 year averages over our recent history seems entirely reasonable in that context.

Before you start ranting about red flags, do some proper research of your own and learn something about our climate history, about which you arec clearly ignorant. And nothwithstanding general public ignorance, produce me even one intellectually coherent 80-year old who doesn’t think things are warmer than they used to be.

Both Sides Now is a Joni Mitchell song (correct R2), written in ‘67 and on her (appropriately titled) album Clouds, but the first commercial release of the song was by Judy Collins (forgivable, Rob).

I prefer Big Yellow Taxi, or Coyote, or A Case Of You.

Depending on who you look at as an authority, we have various temperature reconstructions going back anywhere from 1,000 years to many millions of years.

Ann arbitrary 30-year period of recent vintage has been selected as “normal”.

Go back and read the original Lamb, from East Anglica, on the climate history of the world.

The larger question is, given the length of the inferred record, is a 30-year base period statistically defensible? Can you select any arbitrary 30-year period and make accurate hindcasts and forecasts from that point? If you can demonstrate that it is, was the correct 30-year period chosen?

A second part of the question is do you actually understand the role the sun’s activity plays in shaping climate?

This 3rd rock has been around for 4.5 billion years. It has had no atmosphere and now has one. There have been blooms of life and mass extinctions. There have been periods of tropics and periods of ice ages. CO2 concentrations have been higher and they have been lower. Sometimes it is warm and sometimes it is cold. Sometimes lava flowed freely over vast areas, and sometimes not. Whatever caused these documented events in the geologic record is unknown, as there is no comprehensive theory that explains the ice ages or much of anything else to a reasonable consensus of current scientific opinion.

Lamb pretty well demonstrated with timely contemporary documented proof areas and times when it has been warmer, and colder.

Heated debate about thermometers over the last 150 years is a bit juvenile. But it is worth noting that if an agency has a standard for properly locating an observation station, should it not be observed/enforced?

Oh, and as side note, areas ‘x’ meters from the shore and above the shore consistently show lower highs and higher lows than stations farther above or away from the shore. It ain’t a local thing.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/re.....121421.htm
http://www.sciencedaily.com/re.....214927.htm