Errors remain

Earth’s temperature has never been taken, actually

A story, Analysis confirms global warming data, accounts for urban heat islands, appeared in the Science Media Centre (SMC) on 21 October. I missed it then, but it’s been brought to my attention in correspondence within the Climate Science Coalition.

A member saw the SMC story and commented:

Wratt and Renwick are quick to assert that this non-peer-reviewed temp study reinforces their suspicion that UHI is an insignificant factor. They both refer to numerous other authorities. I thought the leading paper supporting this view was Phil Jones’ China study of about 1991, which he has recently admitted to be based on a mistake. Are there any others which debunk UHI?

This raises several interesting elements which I’d like to follow at some time, but it also prompted this succinct analysis from the evergreen Dr Vincent Gray, who responded:

Vincent Gray

First of all, nobody has ever measured the average temperature of the earth in a way that would have been satisfactory when I took my degree. It is quite impossible to situate thermometers or other sensors all over the earth’s surface in a comprehensive manner and even if you could you would have to wait to see whether the average is rising.

The currently used sample is not only unrepresentative, its representativity changes every second as new stations open, others close, with numbers changing, and no effective standardization. Also, only “anomalies” are claimed and the inaccuracies of the multiple averaging are not revealed. They are certainly greater than any claimed “trend”. These considerations were not treated in the BEST study.

Second, I doubt the accuracy of the MSU system, which claims to measure global temperature. It does not include the poles and I am unclear what parts of the troposphere are averaged or how they vary.

Thirdly, even if there is warming there are several plausible contributors. Changes in the sun, changes in the various ocean oscillations, and human influence reducing convection cooling from winds and evaporation could all contribute, far more plausibly than increases in CO2.

Fourthly, the temperature is not even rising by any of the flawed methods. The latest snowstorm in New York will confirm this once more.

Fifthly, all the assumptions of the models are wrong and there is no evidence they can work, even for simulation.

Finally, the IPCC is hopelessly corrupt. The Climategate emails show that the figures are faked, that critics are silenced, that the peer review process is fixed, yet they are routinely whitewashed. Donna Laframboise’s book shows that they do not even honour peer review, and that many of them are committed environmental activists who routinely falsify or distort.

How can they still get away with it?

Cheers,

Vincent Gray


We don’t know, Vincent. But let us hope it won’t be for much longer.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Post Navigation