Faulty basic data behind the global warming scare

Is global warming a methodological artifact? An email below from Australian climate scientist, Warwick Hughes:

"Last month I started a "20th Anniversary Review" of the Jones et al 1986 papers that gave us IPCC global warming trends so frequently published. See here. It is strange that considering the obvious flaws in the Jones et al methodology there were no Comments in the original journal.

In 1988 Dr Fred Wood a Congressional researcher published a critique of the Jones et al 1986 papers in the Elsevier journal Climatic Change and Wigley & Jones replied saying that Wood was in error on 9 points. I post both papers and analyse the W & J replies point by point here.

Some of the W & J replies are bizarre and I can not see that it is Wood who was in error. In the 1986 Jones et al Southern Hemisphere paper Jones et al 1986 make the amazing statement that, "... very few stations in our final data set come from large cities." Readers should look over; this, where I list Jones et al SH stations sorted by population. Note the population figures are added by me using mainly GHCN data.

Incidentally, the people at climateaudit.org have picked up on my work and there is a post here that has over 70 comments now. Greenie Watch gets an irate mention in comment 5. Comment 74 made some good points about urban heat-island effects".

Warwick's rather stunning chart above shows what happens when you use temperature records from stations that are remote from urban heat-island effects.

The irate mention of Greenie Watch that Warwick refers to is a typical example of the Leftist "argument by abuse" method. No attempt is made to rebut anything said in the abused sources. Ad hominem condemnation alone is all the writer can manage by way of an argument. I am pleased to say that subsequent commenters pointed that out.

Comments? Email John Ray

No comments:

Post a Comment

All comments containing Chinese characters will not be published as I do not understand them