Sign Guestbook Back to Climate Observer
| Date | 16-01-2010 |
| Location |  |
| Message | This new information is excellent, What a lot of great research and hard work it shows. Really great! |
| Date | 04-01-2010 |
| Location | |
| Message |  Greetings Eric Parker,Thank you for your comment and for becoming a follower of this blog. You asked a couple of questions about UHI effect and is it being compensated for by the various data sets. Firstly let me answer your request for more information on UHI by guiding you to my link to Watts Up With That. Once there type UHI into the search facility. This will give you a good range of additional information that may answer most of your questions. To the question of do the data sets compensate for UHI. To the best of my knowledge NASA GISS do, but only in the US. Their formulas employed always sem to round up. HadCRUT apparently don't adjust at all, nor does NCDC. UAH and RSS satellite systems both measure the lower troposphere and therefore are unaffected by UHI. You may also try the site climate4you (again follow the link on my blogroll) It too has some very good information in it's tags on the main data sets and UHI. I hope this helps. |
| Date | 04-01-2010 |
| Location |  |
| Message | Thanks, this blog is extremely informative. I was wondering if there was research on a local warming effect of cities due to asphalt, buildings, concrete, etc. Then, if there is a warming effect, do temerature data sets used for climate models take that into consideration? |
| Date | 27-12-2009 |
| Location | |
| Message | Just had a bit of time to catch up at last. It is really great to see so many people who are not taken in by the Climare Change scam coming together and reading the extremely useful information listed here. |
| Date | 16-12-2009 |
| Location | |
| Message | Thank you Morgan Rees for that interesting background on the terminology used. My intent was simply to clarify that the terms global warming and climate change are now interchangeable with climate change now being the dominant term. You are right, however, about there being an element of politicking to these terminology swaps. As recently we have seen CO2 now being referred to as "Carbon pollution" or a "Dangerous pollutant". As we see time and again in this subject the politics and agenda's often seem to overrule or even completely disregard the science so long as it suits their need. Which is where we are (in my opinion) being misled by those that replace one terminology for another. ie: It is hard to argue for global warming if it isn't actually warming. The term climate change, however, can refer to any change be it up, down, or just different. It can all be blamed on this non-specific term called "climate change." Thank you for your comment and I do hope you will visit again. |
| Date | 16-12-2009 |
| Location | |
| Message | I inferred, I hope incorrectly, at the top of your site you have a negative view of choosing the term climate change over global warming. A historical note: I was a member of the IPCC from 1988 through 1995. Early vigorous debate resulted in consciously choosing the term climate change rather than global warming because we believed that conclusions about global warming, especially human-made, were not scientifically supportable at that time. The idea was the term climate change was more generic and would keep the scientific debate more neutral than assuming the climate is warming (or cooling) whether human induced or not. While I strongly believe that human induced warming (or cooling) is still not scientifically supportable, quibbling over one term versus the other is a political, not scientific argument. |
| Date | 08-12-2009 |
| Location | |
| Message | G'day to all my new readers from the U.S. It is nice to have you all visit, I am glad you are enjoying my blog and you are all most welcome. To try and answer some questions I have been asked by some of you. Tom Dougherty, Try Watts Up With That - 450 peer reviewed papers sceptical of AGW. The first are by Craig Loehle where he writes about reconstructing temperatures for the last 2000 years from Non Tree Ring proxies including Ice Cores and Lake Sediment Beds. At www.freesundayschoollessons.org/pdfs/climate-history. At the back of this paper Professor Loehle lists a range of cited literature. If you are interested in any of those papers I suggest you cut and paste the title into either Google or Bing and see what comes back from the search. I do know some papers you will have to pay to see. It is my understanding that one fundamental flaw of the Ice Core data that was presented by Al Gore in his film and by others, was that the ice cores proved a lagging of CO2 rise compared to temperature (by up to 800 years)not a lead as is proposed now. I hope this helps. Jim Merritt, thank you for your detailed message. I'm guessing that the LLL to which you referred was probably James Hansen given his relationship to Al Gore and propensity for exaggerating his data. Sadly we have similar people in Australia too, a couple of which I have highlighted inside. You might find this of interest too: www.spectator.co.uk/essays/all/5592803/the-cias-global-cooling-files. Please visit again. |
Private Message added 08-12-2009 |
| Date | 08-12-2009 |
| Location | |
| Message | This is an eye opener! The nexus of radical environmentalists, complicit scientists and a compliant media has led us to the economic brink. Your message and that of other honest scientists must be given maximum exposure to the citizens of the world. Great work! |
| Date | 08-12-2009 |
| Location | |
| Message | Compelling and scientific. I wish our elite media would abandon religion for a moment and consider your presentation. Thank you for posting. |
Page 18 of 24 << First < 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 > Last >>