So Lat alerts us to three new papers find most of the alleged global warming since 1850 is artificial, with is heralded by The Hockey Stick.
But, I like to go to the source.
The read is fairly easy going, albeit, very lengthy. Much of it is very introductory. So, it may be pretty mundane for us climate warriors. It’s probably best to start here for many of us.
- Urbanization bias I. Is it a negligible problem for global temperature estimates? – Ronan Connolly & Michael Connolly, 2014a
- Urbanization bias II. An assessment of the NASA GISS urbanization adjustment method – Ronan Connolly & Michael Connolly, 2014b
- Urbanization bias III. Estimating the extent of bias in the Historical Climatology Network datasets – Ronan Connolly & Michael Connolly, 2014c
Take your pick. For the papers themselves, I chose to look at #2. Here’s the pdf. It’s a total of 31 pages. This is from their conclusions. Sorry about the formatting, but, to do otherwise, I’d have to individually remove the numbers, and, many of us are used to reading numbered pdf papers anyway.
1734 In this article, the adjustments applied by NASA
1735 GISS to remove urbanization bias from their global
1736 temperature estimates were assessed. We found a
1737 number of serious problems with their adjustments:
1738 The vast majority of their adjustments involved
1739 correcting for \urban cooling”, but urbanization
1740 bias is predominantly a warming bias.
1741 The net effect of their adjustments was unreal1742
statistically low, and tended towards zero for recent
1743 decades, despite this being a period during which
1744 urbanization increased globally.
1745 For a subset of some of the most highly urbanized
1746 stations, their adjustments succeeded in remov1747
ing much of the urban warming for the period
1748 1895-1980. But, for the more recent period, al1749
most no adjustment was applied, even though
1750 urbanization continued to increase.
1751 A number of serious
aws were found in the current
1753 The use of their \extension rule” to extend the
1754 length of the urban records they could use in
1755 their global temperature estimates is inappropri1756
ate, because they include these extended periods
1757 of the urban records unadjusted.
1758 Their method for identifying stations as urban
1759 assumes that the co-ordinates they have for the
1760 stations are accurate, but quite a few of their
1761 station co-ordinates are inaccurate.
1762 Their method for identifying urban stations is
1763 not sensitive enough.
1764 As we discuss in Paper III, the currently avail1765
able weather station datasets have a severe short1766
age of records for rural stations which are both
1767 long and complete. Their method is unable to
1768 adequately handle such a shortage.
Their method assumes that the only non- 1769
climatic biases which need to be considered are 1770
urbanization biases. As a result, up until Decem- 1771
ber 2011, their adjustments were confounded by 1772
the presence of other non-climatic biases, leading 1773
to spurious and inappropriate adjustments. 1774
In December 2011, they switched to using a 1775
dataset which had already been homogeneity- 1776
adjusted, and so, presumably, this problem has 1777
been reduced. However, as we discuss in Pa- 1778
per III, the homogeneity-adjustments used for 1779
that dataset are inadequate and often lead to the 1780
\blending” of non-climatic biases between sta- 1781
tions, rather than their removal. So, switching 1782
to this dataset has introduced new problems.
I emboldened part of this because this is the problem with many people, including our scientists. People tend to view things as they experience them. And, these guys got it exactly right! Globally, we’re urbanizing. For Europe, much of it has already been urbanized, as is true for much of the developed world.
About the only thing I’d add here is that we need to realize the UHI effect is logarithmic. That is to say a curve for the effect of UHI would look something like this …..
And, this is where almost everyone get’s it wrong. The impact on temps, locally, is most predominately done by the addition of the first human, and decreases in effect per person as the population increases. That is to say, when you add another person to the one, that additional person has much greater affect on the temps than does adding one to 100,000.
GISS divides up the stations in a rural vs urban notion. Well, what’s rural? GISS uses night lighting to make that determination, today, as noted in the paper. But, that’s wrong. Science notes the “observer effect”, which refers to changes that the act of observation will make on a phenomenon being observed. And so it is with our temperature stations. Regardless of the type of thermometer we’re using, or the types of communication to the thermometer, we’re absolutely altering the environment in which we’re seeking to measure. There’s no getting around this, and thus, the adjustments.
Are the adjustments wrong? Of course they are. GISS has only two categories? Even if they had their calculations right, which they don’t, then they’d still be mostly wrong because of the logarithmic nature of the UHI.
The temperature record, which gives us a global average temperature is nothing but an illogical contravention of a bunch of fanatical lunatics who have no understanding of math or science.