It's quite an eye-opener.
Patrick Coin, I'd particularly appreciate it if you'd take a good look and then comment.
A critical slide is this one. Those are some pretty hefty error estimates (many greater than 2 degrees C), especially considering that total 20th century warming is supposed to be around .6 degrees C.
A related quote from Michael Crichton is here:
Another factor that could change the record is heat from cities. This is called the urban heat bias, and as with solar effects, scientists tended to think the effect, while real, was relatively minor. That is why the IPCC allowed only six hundredths of a degree for urban heating.
Posts
3 comments:
Interesting. I've always felt very out of my league looking at climatology, I'm afraid--it is almost mind-numbingly complicated.
It seems pretty obvious that biases could exist in siting of weather stations. What is lacking, on the face of it, is knowledge of how those have changed over time. I know for instance, in my area (lower Piedmont, NC), there has probably been a big increase in forest area over the last 60 years, as farms were abandoned and grew up into woodlands. A lot of those woodlands are now being converted to suburbs. I'm sure there would be some effect on regional climate and climate measurements, but I'm not sure which way it would go. (My house in a wooded area is usually a couple of degrees cooler in the summer than the official measurements at a nearby airport, but in the winter it is a couple of degrees warmer on cold nights. How does that balance out over the year--I have no idea.)
There might be the same sort of trends due to changing forest cover over much of the eastern United States--or not!
Interesting concepts--totally out of my competence. (I'm touched somebody thinks something of my opinion, but have to chuckle a little inwardly!)
Thanks for your comment, Patrick.
I singled you out because I think you will be relatively quick to figure out just how farcical the global warming catastrophe claims are.
I'm guessing that Ilya MacLean will also figure this out eventually, but it may take a long time.
The Commenter Formerly Known as Amy Lester is evidently so blinded by ideology that [s]he may not figure it out until we're all freezing our "butts" off in the next solar minimum.
By the way, you don't need climatology training to understand the key points of the global warming farce any more than you need ornithology training to figure out the IBWO one.
(I'm not saying that I have any real idea what the 21st century temperature graph will look like.)
I am 100% certain that the icon of the whole global warming fiasco (the "hockey stick") is "slap-yourself-on-the-forehead" ridiculous. I maintain that anyone defending it at this point is in a similar position as current Luneau video defenders.
Post a Comment