11–20 of 94 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
http://www.surfacestations.org/ Only about 1 in 10 surface weather stations is sufficiently properly sited to produce data accurate to within 1 deg. C.
...in the US.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
...in the US.
If you imagine that Canadian surface stations are sited altogether differently then you're living in a fantasy world.
I think at this point, everyone has made up their minds which side to believe, and more evidence isn't going to help the matter, unless it is the sort of rock-hard evidence no one can possibly ignore (like repeated snowless winters in Detroit).
I think at this point, everyone has made up their minds which side to believe, and more evidence isn't going to help the matter, unless it is the sort of rock-hard evidence no one can possibly ignore (like repeated snowless winters in Detroit).
Really? You mean to say that if you believed something, no amount of new evidence to the contrary could persuade you to change your mind?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Really? You mean to say that if you believed something, no amount of new evidence to the contrary could persuade you to change your mind?
I think he's probably saying that most people are like that, and sadly, I have to agree.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you imagine that Canadian surface stations are sited altogether differently then you're living in a fantasy world.
I'm not imagining anything, just increasing the accuracy of your statement - I think accuracy is important when it comes to climate science.
"...in the US; here's a good study on the subject:" would.
Visit: http://whitemagicsoftware.com/software/climate/master.shtml 1. City: Cranbrook BC 2. Days: June 1 to October 1 3. Click Report 4. Repeat for any number of Canadian cities
http://www.surfacestations.org/ Only about 1 in 10 surface weather stations is sufficiently properly sited to produce data accurate to within 1 deg. C.
I think at this point, everyone has made up their minds which side to believe, and more evidence isn't going to help the matter, unless it is the sort of rock-hard evidence no one can possibly ignore (like repeated snowless winters in Detroit).
By the way, as evidence of global warming, repeated snowless winters in Detroit would not be especially more convincing than the huge amount of evidence we already have.
You don't have to wait to observe the effects of climate change. Where I come from - the south-west of Western Australia - when compared to the 70s, rainfall levels are way down, stream flows into dams are way down, number of hot days per year are up, and average temperatures are up.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
http://www.surfacestations.org/ Only about 1 in 10 surface weather stations is sufficiently properly sited to produce data accurate to within 1 deg. C.
The urban heat island effect and 'micro-climates' have a negligible impact on long term warming trends, especially when records are averaged over large areas. Also, rural temperature records show the same warming trends as urban ones. The 'evidence' on this site isn't relevant to arguments regarding the existing of global warming.
http://whitemagicsoftware.com/software/climate/guru.shtml
The site says nothing about global warming or the cause. The site does show that there is a consistent warming trend over summer months across all of Canada, and is most extreme in northern Canada. Also, I believe the Environment Canada data is accurate to within 0.2 degrees C.
By the way here is another picture: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Atmospheric_CO2_with_glaci...
