A new analysis of the US temperature record concludes:
The simple take-away is that while UHI [Urban Heat Island] and other urban-correlated biases are real (and can have a big effect), current methods of detecting and correcting localized breakpoints are generally effective in removing that bias. Blog claims that UHI explains any substantial fraction of the recent warming in the US are just not supported by the data.Andrew Bolt should be interested in particular.
He has been spending days demanding apologies from people who have been disputing the accuracy of the statement that there has been a 16 year pause in global warming.
Hey Andrew, why don't you lead by example: in 2011 in a series of posts at this blog (see one of them here) and in a series of comments I left at your blog, I pointed out that you had interviewed Anthony Watts in 2010 and he finished with the statement that he believed up to .5 of a degree (about 2/3 of 20th century warming, you added) of the increased temperature in the US could be due to poor siting of thermometers at weather stations.
Andrew Bolt, you have never corrected the Watts' wildly incorrect estimate, despite repeated invitations in your blog comments threads to do so. It was particularly worthy of comment because Watts' own co-authored paper had, within a surprisingly short time of his claim in Australia, disproved his long campaign alleging that poor siting of thermometers was a huge issue that could debunk global warming - a campaign which you also promoted for years, following his lead.
Bolt is an extreme hypocrite, and has become an obnoxious commentator on all matters political.
No comments:
Post a Comment