Yesterday I was writing about the 97% consensus on human-induced warming. Of course we are all part of the consensus as defined by Cook and associates because they consider any warming and any human contribution as AGW. If we don’t want to accept CO2-driven warming we can still be a part of the “consensus” on the basis of the human contribution in the urban heat island effect.
Consequently their “consensus” is meaningless.
The thought occurred that the urban heat island effect is not just something that affects the urban locality because so many weather stations are located in urban areas or other places subjected to local human activity that the urban effect leaks into the records of the global mean temperature and corrupts it. Hence the case mounted by hard-core sceptics that there has probably been next to no warming at all in a hundred years or more.
Read all about it in Jo Nova’s column today.
The biggest changes in temperature (“divergence” in dark red brown Fig 6) occurred where the most people lived (blue dots). In the 60 years to 2010 China was reported to have warmed by 0.79 ± 0.10 °C. However Scafetta et al calculate at most, China could have experienced a real warming of only 0.46 ± 0.13 °C.
Somehow the combined might and supercomputers at NOAA, NASA, Hadley and the Bureau of Met experts all missed this.
It’s another third of a degree gone from the Glorious CO2 Narrative. Just like that.
The research duo looked at the minima, the maxima, the seasonal and monthly patterns, and in pretty much every case, the warmth follows the same pattern we’d expect if it was caused by human industry. The minimums rose more than the maximums. The biggest warming effect comes in the coolest part of the day and in the coolest half of the year – and it’s a toss up whether China has even warmed at all since 1940. The nights are hotter, but the days are colder than they used to be — inasmuch as anyone has any idea at all what the temperature would really have been.