Started 1 month ago (2009-12-01 00:04:00)
by Dave Clarke
I think that any modification to temperature data renders the data useless.
Let's speak theoretically here, let's say AGW is proven, then surely UHI's have an effect on that? Why remove/add/fiddle temp data to edit these parameters?
Hmm, no wonder there's so much discourse over AGW/Climate Change.
It's all a bit of a "
grey" area imho.
Started 3 weeks, 4 days ago (2009-12-05 09:52:00)
by John Mason
Given that it is a
dataset apparently going back 150 years, I would guess that it is temperature. Anyone else know more? Cheers - John
Started 2 years, 2 months ago (2007-10-12 16:26:00)
by DeWitt
I would like to apply for posting permission for the Climatic Discussion & Analysis forum. My username is DeWitt. I think the majority of my posts have been directly science related with minimal antagonism. See the Hans/Nasif debate thread and the Arctic temperature prediction thread for example. I just started a very interesting (to me ) discussion on
atmospheric physics with Tom Vonk on ...
Started 3 weeks, 5 days ago (2009-12-04 17:12:00)
by Dave Clarke
No looks like it's winning!
Started 3 weeks, 6 days ago (2009-12-03 15:29:00)
by Village
I have also stated the same thing It was obvious to me years ago that because climate change isn't about the science but has everything to do with lifestyle change, then the end result can only lead to one thing. The end will be when the social engineers baying for change will choose the size of the human population. What
they don't understand is that nature is the best regulator there is, ...
Started 3 weeks, 5 days ago (2009-12-04 12:29:00)
by ldavidcooke
Hey BDG,
I opted out of this as the definitions do not take into affect that influences in an open system are not strongly bounded. Meaning local, regional, global effects to weather may be influenced at varying levels as you move away from the sources and are generally limited by local topography.
Better yet, that you suggest that
AGW actions locally could affect local ...
Started 3 weeks, 6 days ago (2009-12-03 19:39:00)
by John Mason
Andy Mayhew - 3/12/2009 19:15 I would expect most people to be 2 or 3 - but we will see. I'm a 2-er, but the
persuasion needs to be good! Cheers - John
Started 4 months, 3 weeks ago (2009-08-09 12:51:00)
by ldavidcooke
Hey John,
Interesting read, it seems to sum up the
last five years of climate discussions here...
Cheers!
Dave Cooke
Started 1 month ago (2009-11-29 00:04:00)
by PaulKn
The vast majority of heat is gain from
solar radiation I would imagine.
Started 4 weeks ago (2009-12-02 09:37:00)
by snow hope
I think he is doing the correct thing, to allow an investigation to show up the full facts. Until we see the results of the investigation, we won't know if he has "fallen" or not.
No matter which side of the divide you are on regarding AGW, I think it is fair to say that the
CRU have not covered themselves in glory. : (
Size: 408 bytes
