I agree Katie, the journalism skills showed in that report were easily terrible enough to deserve an eye roll considering that the crap in it can easily be refuted with simple research.
Quote:
The damaging new findings by Mr Watts, whose study has not been peer reviewed,
Wonder why? Is it perhaps because a peer review of poorly sited stations HAS been conducted and didn't produce the results they were hoping?
"Data analysis comparing the temperature trends from poorly sited weather stations to well sited stations find the poor sites actually show a cooling bias compared to good sites. The cooling bias is caused by a change to the Maximum/Minimum Temperature Systems which is found more often at poor sites. When the change of instrument biases are taken into account, there is very little difference between the trends from poor and well sited weather stations."
https://www.skepticalscience.com/microsite-influences-on-global-temperature.htm
Quote:
Prof Christy has published research papers examining the effects of local factors on weather stations in California, Alabama and east Africa, which he believes drastically undermine the reliability of global temperature records.
?The story is the same for each one. The popular data sets show a lot of warming but the apparent temperature rise was actually caused by local factors affecting the local weather stations, such as land development,? he said.
"the interpretation that irrigation explains the rise in nighttime temperature does not seem supportable. Neither the results from gridded or meteorological station datasets nor the seasonality of the trends can support this hypothesis. According to the observational datasets used here, the rise in minimum temperatures has occurred across the entire state (although it is not significant everywhere), affected all elevations (Fig. 1 ), and accelerated during the second half of the twentieth century, which suggests a large-scale influence on California climate."
https://ams.allenpress.com/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1175%2FJCLI4247.1&ct=1
And finally by far the most funny:
Quote:
Ross McKitrick, professor of economics at the University of Guelph, Canada, also highlighted problems with the weather data used by the IPCC after being invited to review its last report in 2007.
?We concluded, with overwhelming statistical significance, that the IPCC?s climate data are contaminated with surface effects from industrialisation and data quality problems. These add up to a large warming bias,? he said.
If only McKitrick hadn't confused degrees with radians, his results might be worth something.
https://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2004/08/mckitrick6.php
Feb 16, 2010 @ 00:31:37
