So this makes how many (possibly) peer reviewed studies refuting climate change? Must be nearly 30 by now.
'Modern warming trend can't be found' in new climate study
There's interesting news on the climate beat this week, especially given the background of the just-released IPCC AR5 report - which blames humanity for warming the planet. A new, comprehensive study examining temperatures in the Eastern Mediterranean region over the last 900 years indicates that global warming and associated …
-
Tuesday 1st October 2013 09:07 GMT Jim Steele
Most often tree ring studies are located far from regions experiencing population growth. Tree rings estimate natural climate while instrumental data estimates urbanized climate. Worse climate scientists adjust the data and typically rural sites get adjusted so trends match urbanized sites. Read http://landscapesandcycles.net/why-unwarranted-temperature-adjustments-.html
-
-
Tuesday 1st October 2013 09:21 GMT codejunky
Big problem
This causes an interesting issue in the debate. The pro warmists defend tree ring data because the selective choice of data they went with proved their position. The anti warmists explained how tree ring data is not an accurate measurement. I wish we had an 'evil smile on black' icon.
So either the warmists accept the tree ring data as they accept tree ring data or have some explaining to do as to why their trees dont lie but these do. But also the anti warmists have to explain how this tree ring data is accurate enough when pro warming trees lie or accept this data is as inaccurate as the warmists tree ring data.
I look forward to the resolution.
-
Tuesday 1st October 2013 12:37 GMT Anonymous Coward
OK, people, chill
Epoche. Suspend judgment. Or, as Wittgenstein memorably advised, "Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, darüber muss man schweigen". (Memorably paraphrased by Tom Lehrer as "...if a person can't communicate, the very least he can do is to shut up"). If only...
This is a very big set of problems; so big that not only don't we yet have enough data to have a clue, we don't even know if we are asking the right questions.
Difficult as it might be for them, it would help immeasurably if politicians, religious authorities, media celebs - and everyone else who neither understands the science involved nor can be bothered to learn about it - would butt out and stop interfering. The noise they are generating completely drowns out whatever feeble signal there may be.
-
Tuesday 1st October 2013 16:48 GMT Pat Volk
Small data sets
I'm not so much concerned about GW/CC as I am about cutting down greenshouse gas emissions. I am however concerned about all these danged windmills slowing down the winds. Will be interesting if it's discovered 30 years from now that wind farms cause turbulent air which increases soil erosion. Or by putting a turbulent layer of air allows the upper winds to go faster.
But don't pooh-pooh global warming/climate change data for being spotty, and then using spotty data to refute. The earth is a complex system, and can abosorb much more than we can comprehend. I read somewhere if there are carbon credits, there should be oxygen, nitrogen, and helium credits for openers. Why pick on carbon? And where can I sign up for gold credits?
-
Friday 4th October 2013 06:52 GMT Anonymous Coward
Blah Blah Blah
Even if we do every little thing that the greenies want us to do, climate will (1) continue to change and (2) change across a bigger range than has supposedly occurred since we started releasing evil 'carbons' in large quantities. So, frankly, I don't give a damn. Last one out switch off the lights, please.
This topic is closed for new posts.
Biting the hand that feeds IT
