Not exact matches
«The real issue is: Are people making real estate decisions
based on
climate change futures, rather than sort of
normal speculation?»
Since nothing is happening beyond
normal variation in the
climate or weather, not even trends (with 1000 year plus cycles a short phase will look like a trend), then there is no measurable
basis for claiming CO2 is changing the
climate.
But painting this as the «
normal», opinion -
based sort of consensus is a good denial tactic, as is highlighting the views of the very few contrarian
climate scientists (who are in the same boat as the people who authored negative trials on aspirin, if there are any - they're destined for the dustbin of science history.)
I think that needs to be established before anyone can say what is not «
normal» I know that in
climate circles the «norm» or the
base is the temperatures between 1950 - 1980, but what I'd like to know is why is that considered
normal?
Climate change is
normal based on our planets history.
The NSRDB accounts for any recent
climate changes and provides more accurate values of solar radiation due to a better model for estimating values (more than 90 percent of the solar radiation data in both data
bases are modeled), more measured data including direct
normal radiation, improved instrument calibration methods, and rigorous procedures for assessing quality of data.
Much of the alarm over
climate change is
based on ignorance of what is
normal for weather and
climate.
NOAA's
Climate Prediction Center has already changed their
Normals to the 1981 — 2010
base period?
In order to put things into a more «
normal» scientific perspective will require «tweaking»
climate science a bit since they are clueless about approaches to non-linear, non-equilibrium problems and have developed a
base set of assumptions inappropriate for the problem.