6 replies to this topic

[Karlis]

www.investigatemagazine.co.nz said:

Since 2009, when climate sceptics in New Zealand discovered “adjustments” had been made to historical temperature records, concern has spread worldwide at similar adjustments found in Australia, the UK and the United States. Now Spencer, a specialist in satellite temperature records, has checked official land based weather station records in the USA and discovered most of the claimed global warming of the past 40 years appears to be a result of data adjustments after the fact, not raw temperature records. Read more...

[and then]

It sounds like a bit of "trickeration" as they say in American football.  The question is who benefits from it?  And was it done out of a sincere desire to warm of a peril that is believed to be real or is it just an attempt to cash in on gullibility?  All I know for sure is that last summer where I live was brutal and then there practically was no winter.

[PeacefulAnarchy]

and then, on 14 April 2012 - 07:07 AM, said:

It sounds like a bit of "trickeration" as they say in American football.  The question is who benefits from it?  And was it done out of a sincere desire to warm of a peril that is believed to be real or is it just an attempt to cash in on gullibility?  All I know for sure is that last summer where I live was brutal and then there practically was no winter.

It's just called weather...    

[Karlis]

PeacefulAnarchy, on 14 April 2012 - 01:04 PM, said:

It's just called weather...    

It's just called the opinion of Governments, UN, Bankers, et al, whether the weather can bring in the big Dollars.

[Doug1o29]

Just one question here:  how does one take US instrumental records, which only go back to the 1880s, and come up with the conclusion that GLOBAL records have been faked?  Especially, when many of those global records go back 400 years or more?

And how does one use that to discount proxy research?

There are 31 weather stations on the Ouachita National Forest alone, about 100 in Arkansas and about 5000 across the US.  Dendrochronologists generally try to use the nearest station to corroborate their models.  Without faking data on a truly grandiose scale over a 130-year time span, how does one produce fake weather records that show warming if there isn't any?  And why would those fake records then produce correlations with real-life data?

I don't need climate records to tell that there were monster storms in 1862, 1864, 1881, 1886 and 1894 in northern Oklahoma - they left their mark in the tree rings.

For God's sake:  engage your brains before you believe every wild-eyed story that comes along!
Doug

[Simbi Laveau]

I don't see how the public can still be so gullible.They lie to us,about EVERYTHING.

[JayMark]

Karlis, on 14 April 2012 - 03:06 PM, said:

It's just called the opinion of Governments, UN, Bankers, et al, whether the weather can bring in the big Dollars.

Climate changes from global warming will eventually cost a lot more that what it would to actually minimize it's impact by reducing GHG emissions according to the World Bank. It is already the case where I live. Literally. There are direct costs and indirect costs. But I agree, local and global is diffrent.

The local climate is warming in many places, more than it is idling and cooling in other areas hence the global warming issue. Where I live, we are also seeing our winters disseapearing and more and more violent weather extremes. Here we are talking about a tendency that has been going for decades and that reached a new level about 10-15 years ago and perhaps a new one in the last few years (now witnessing never-seen phenomenons). So in conclusion, it is a lot more than simple weather in many cases.

That's why we need to rely on scientific facts here, not biaised opinions. The question of AGW is no longer debated. It is an established fact. Nobody can disprove that.

We could argue a lot about it's evolution in the future on the where/how/what/when because of the complexity of the mechanisms but not on the question of AGW per se. More heat provides more energy which feeds the thermodynamics of climate, that is a fact to begin with. So in conclusion, we will most probably see more violent extremes.

But it dosen't mean necessarily that we will see more hurricanes for instance but simply more "extreme" ones among them. That's an example. I'm currently in the process of studying future models and their mechanics.

Peace.

Edited by JayMark, 16 April 2012 - 03:12 PM.