|
Post by eamonnshute on Oct 4, 2010 15:10:40 GMT 1
The speaker merely asks how much of Dr Phil’s estimate of the GLOBAL mean temperature is also down to UHI? A very good question, which Eamonn, apparently, does not wish to address. No it is a silly question. Jones' estimate is, of course, adjusted for the UHI effect. Are you saying that he has done the correction wrongly? Does he concede that he has made a mistake? Does everyone agree that he has made a mistake? And what if he has? Science is self-correcting, and it doesn't in any way refute claims of AGW, as there is too much evidence for it. If you think Jones has done his sums wrong then show us the correct figures, as published in a peer reviewed journal.
|
|
|
Post by StuartG on Oct 4, 2010 15:17:24 GMT 1
There must be some sort of heat effect there. If you think so, then i suggest you do some sums to estimate the size of the effect then come back to us - and please show your working! sorry not bright enough to do the maths Here's a start... "This study provides new insights into ship-generated disturbances on the ocean surface, which have received little attention in climate studies, but is potentially significant for the ocean atmosphere energy balance and could affect climate." www.atmos-chem-phys-discuss.net/10/21683/2010/acpd-10-21683-2010-print.pdfYou'll thank me for this insight I have given You, in the future.
|
|
|
Post by StuartG on Oct 4, 2010 15:28:40 GMT 1
|
|
|
Post by eamonnshute on Oct 4, 2010 15:30:36 GMT 1
That wasn't the effect I expected you to mean, but "...forcing averaged only over the Northern Hemisphere ocean would be 0.0037Wm−2" compared to ~1000Wm-2 from the sun, so completely negligible, imo.
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Oct 4, 2010 15:58:33 GMT 1
"Are you saying that he has done the correction wrongly?" What is being claimed is that Phil Jones has not accurately identified the true extent of the UHI over the last century. Dr Andrei Illarionov and his team have analysed the Russian station data used by Dr Phil and have demonstrated the extent of the UHI for Russia, namely, 0.5 degreeC of the purported increase over the last century. That constitutes a very large chunk of the claimed 1.29 degreesC rise in Russia over the century. It was Dr Illarioinov's Institute that blew the whistle last year on CRU's cherry-picking of Russian data, headlined in the Daily Telegraph "..now the Russians confirm that UK climate scientists manipulated data to exaggerate global warming" blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100020126/climategate-goes-serial-now-the-russians-confirm-that-uk-climate-scientists-manipulated-data-to-exaggerate-global-warming/
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Oct 4, 2010 16:02:38 GMT 1
It's no use bleating about "peer-review" as if it constituted some sort of Gold Standard, Eamonn. That particular cat escaped from the AGW bag long ago and was firmly nailed down in the Climategate emails.
|
|