Here is some genuine science being used and the conclusion(s) do not support the need for concern about a warming trend, if the trend in fact exists at all.
I believe the article provides support for my general contention that however good the science is, the subject “climate and its factors” are of such complexity and variability as to make IPCC and political carbon control decisions untenable. Reference here.
- AGW – The Mother of All Hoaxes (tgrule.com)
- AGW – Climate Science made Clear at WUWT (tgrule.com)
- Climate Science – The Abuse Of Science For A Global Political Agenda (toryaardvark.com)
- The New Definition Of Extreme Weather (stevengoddard.wordpress.com)
- Tim Ball: Climate Science Falsehoods Repeated With PR Orchestrated Counterattack (junkscience.com)
- Why a carbon tax is still a bad idea (aei-ideas.org)
- Steve Milloy: Models, Not Climate, Are Hypersensitive to Carbon Dioxide (junkscience.com)
Guest post by Lance Wallace
The traditional estimate of temperature at measuring stations has been to average the highest (Tmax) and lowest (Tmin) daily measurements. This leads to error in estimating the true mean temperature. What is the magnitude of this error and how does it depend on geographic and climatic variables? The US Climate Reference Network (USCRN) of temperature measuring stations is employed to estimate the error for each station in the network. The 10th-90th percentile range of the errors extends from -0.5 to +0.5 C. Latitude and relative humidity (RH) are found to exert the largest influences on the error, explaining about 28% of the variance. A majority of stations have a consistent under- or over-estimate during all four seasons. The station behavior is also consistent across the years.
Historically, temperature measurements used to estimate climate change have depended on thermometers that record…
View original post 3,776 more words