the Air Vent

Because the world needs another opinion

Roy Spencer finds Scientific Proof of UHI, Chooses blog post rather than formal publication.

Posted by Jeff Id on March 30, 2012

McKitrick & Michaels Were Right: More Evidence of Spurious Warming in the IPCC Surface Temperature Dataset

How can one explain such results, other than to conclude that there is spurious warming in the CRUTem3 dataset? I already see in the comments, below, that there are a few attempts to divert attention from this central issue. I would like to hear an alternative explanation for such results.

I would love to write this work up and submit it for publication, but I am growing weary of the IPCC gatekeepers killing my papers; the more damaging any conclusions are to the IPCC narrative, the less likely they are to be published. That’s the world we live in.

Roy has given blanket permission to use his posts here but this is already being covered at WUWT and his blog linked above.


12 Responses to “Roy Spencer finds Scientific Proof of UHI, Chooses blog post rather than formal publication.”

  1. kim2ooo said

    Reblogged this on Climate Ponderings.

  2. Jeff

    WUWT is a gladiatorial site and, guess what, the first comment came from Steve Mosher. And it was protective rather than responsive in feel. But, Mosher has done a lot of work on this. Would it be productive for someone like you to broker a proper debate on the subject, away from the peanut-gallery?

  3. #2, I need to blog regularly to have enough influence that a debate would start.

  4. I found the same thing.

    “I took the list of BEST sites and using those sites in BEST with a Country code of United States I used State/County name to merge with the list of Counties I have with population changes.

    I am attempting to correlate County population changes changes from 1900 to 2010 with cooling or warming from 1900 to 2011.

    1956 Stations with data in 2011 and 1900.

    1320 were warming and 636 were cooling.

    1213 of those I could match to the table of US Counties.

    1089 distinct counties.

    562 of those counties had more warming stations than cooling.

    496 had more cooling stations than warming.

    31 had an equal number of cooling and warming stations.

    Warming Counties had a mean temperature change of .0692C/decade.

    Warming counties had a mean population increase of 174,361.

    Warming counties on average grew by 648% from 1900 to 2011.

    Cooling counties had a mean temperature change of -.0573C/decade.

    Cooling counties had a mean population increase of 39,060.

    Cooling counties on average grew by 194% for 1900 to 2011.”

    http://sunshinehours.wordpress.com/2012/03/17/county-population-statistics-and-coolingwarming-stations-since-1900/

  5. Genghis said

    I have a couple of questions.

    1. Is it true that warming primarily increases by latitude? In other words there has been zero warming at the equator and the highest level of warming has been at the poles? I think that was what Mosher was suggesting.

    2. If number one is the case then shouldn’t the latitude be compared to get the proper amount of UHI effect? Or population growth by latitude?

    3. Has anyone compared the enthalpy of the atmosphere at two meters above the surface by latitude?

  6. The data is also biased by a drop in Elevation.

    From 1950 to 2000, the average elevation of BEST data dropped 46m.

    Thats .45C of warming according lapse rate calculators.

    http://sunshinehours.wordpress.com/2012/03/21/climate-data-and-elevation/

    AGW = UHI + lower thermometers.

  7. Genghis said

    Sunshine, that is very interesting. The lapse rate is 1.98˚ C per 304 meters so that is only .3 degrees by my calculator, but still that is huge.

  8. Genghis said

    But if they are simply comparing rates of change it shouldn’t make a difference, should it?

  9. #7 -I used this calculator. http://www.shodor.org/os411/courses/_master/tools/calculators/lapserate/

    But it could be wrong.

  10. Iain Hall said

    Reblogged this on Iain Hall's SANDPIT and commented:
    Ah those cheeky Climate scientists, who would have thunk it?
    Cheers Comrades

  11. kuhnkat said

    Genghis,

    in the OFFICIAL records that have been adjusted to agony, yes, the warming is latitudinal. Of course, we also see that there is more warming in the NH than the SH. These results are quite consistent with UHI that Moshpup and friends can’t seem to do anything but average away no matter how many real scientists find it.

    About the same time Moshpup and friends brought out their paper doing the usual semi urban to urban comparisons, some gentlemen in Korea published a very good paper on UHI. Ask Mosh to explain their results. There was a lot of silence on the Blackboard Thread where they were discussing lack of UHI when I posted it.

    http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=24538066

  12. kuhnkat said

    AllAbouthimself,

    “As for the “hundreds” of people opposing my views on tallbloke – well it’s been rather quiet there lately and no one has succeeded in opposing anything successfully.”

    You have a view worth opposing???

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

 
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 140 other followers

%d bloggers like this: