This is a small bombshell. I’ve been telling readers about UHI since this blog started. One notable example that I demonstrated by actual measurement is Reno, NV:
Click for larger image
The IPCC reports have minimized the effects of UHI on climate for quite some time.
From Warwick Hughes:
The IPCC drew that conclusion from the Jones et al 1990 Letter to Nature which examined temperature data from regions in Eastern Australia, Western USSR and Eastern China, to conclude that “In none of the three regions studied is there any indication of significant urban influence..” That has led to the IPCC claim that for decades, urban warming is less than 0.05 per century.
A paper in JGR that slipped by last fall without much notice (but know now thanks to Warwick Hughes) is one from Phil Jones, the director of the Hadley Climate Center in the UK. The pager is titled: Urbanization effects in large-scale temperature records, with an emphasis on China
In it, Jones identifies an urban warming signal in China of 0.1 degrees C per decade. Or, if you prefer, 1 degree C per century. Not negligible by any means. Here is the abstract:
Global surface temperature trends, based on land and marine data, show warming of about 0.8°C over the last 100 years. This rate of warming is sometimes questioned because of the existence of well-known Urban Heat Islands (UHIs). We show examples of the UHIs at London and Vienna, where city center sites are warmer than surrounding rural locations. Both of these UHIs however do not contribute to warming trends over the 20th century because the influences of the cities on surface temperatures have not changed over this time. In the main part of the paper, for China, we compare a new homogenized station data set with gridded temperature products and attempt to assess possible urban influences using sea surface temperature (SST) data sets for the area east of the Chinese mainland. We show that all the land-based data sets for China agree exceptionally well and that their residual warming compared to the SST series since 1951 is relatively small compared to the large-scale warming. Urban-related warming over China is shown to be about 0.1°C decade−1 over the period 1951–2004, with true climatic warming accounting for 0.81°C over this period.
Even though Jones tries to minimize the UHI effect elsewhere, saying the UHI trends don’t contribute to warming in London and Vienna, what is notable about the paper is that Jones has been minimizing the UHI issues for years and now does an about face on China. And even more notable is that Jones result are directly at odds with another researcher at Hadley, Dr. David Parker.
It seems that Parker is looking more and more foolish with his attempts to make UHI “disappear” To back that up, the National Weather Service includes the UHI factor in one of it’s training course ( NOAA Professional Competency Unit 6 ) using Reno, NV.
In the PUC6 they were also kind enough to provide a photo essay of their own as well as a graph. You can click the aerial photo to get a Google Earth interactive view of the area. The ASOS USHCN station is right between the runways.
This is NOAA’s graph showing the changes to the official climate record when they made station moves:
Source for 24a and 24b: NOAA Internal Training manual, 2004-2007
What is striking about this is that here we have NOAA documenting the effects of an “urban heat bubble” something that Parker 2003 et al say “doesn’t exist“, plus we have inclusion a site with known issues, held up as a bad example for training the operational folks, being used in a case study for the new USHCN2 system.
So if NOAA trains for UHI placement, and Hadley’s Dr. Jones admits it is real and quantifies it, I’m comfortable in saying that Parker’s claims of UHI being negligible are pure rubbish.
Its all about location, location, location. And climate monitoring stations that are poorly sited and that have been overrun by urban growth clearly don’t give a pure signal for assesment of long term climate trends. This puts a real kink in the validity of the surface temperature data in GISS and HadCRUT and could go a long way towards explaining the divergence between satellite and surface temperatures in recent years.
Matt Bennett says:
Sigh, someone who is ignorant and has not been to ClimateAudit.
No wonder you throw around epithets about creationism.
More HUA disease, it seems to me.
Regarding the discussion of valleys and surrounding mountains in California, the issue of the study was whether temperature trends support the fingerprint of AGW. After all, temperature anomalies were on the rise in the valley. Since CO2 in the atmosphere traps radiated heat (in the troposphere) and then the atmosphere further warms the surface, we would expect to see higher anomalies in higher altitudes. However, expectations (based on AGW) did not match reality. No noticeable anomaly trends were recorded higher on the mountains, but the valley did see trends toward higher anomalies. As is often found in studying climate issues, there are better explanations for developments rather than CO2-based AGW. The valley had undergone irrigation development, and increased foliage (perhaps supplemented by increased water vapor given off by plants) kept more heat near the surface of the valley.
A corollary fingerprint of AGW is that the stratosphere should cool while the troposphere warms (a faster rate than the surface.) Over the past few decades, the stratosphere has cooled, and this trend is often hailed as proof that the AGW theory is sound. However, one should always analyze data carefully before claiming victory. The significant cooling took place a couple of decades ago, and the temperature seemed to decrease in a step-down function correlated with major volcanoes that reached the stratosphere. Then stratospheric temperatures were quite flat from the end of 1994 to mid 2008, although the trend has been down in the last few months. Some scientists are discussing the role of ozone in driving stratospheric temperatures, but it appears that the science is not settled yet.
Galileo (04:20:28),
Fascinating story there. Why even have a hearing? The head of the three judge panel has already decided:
So the judge’s opinion is that the belief of the plaintiff goes beyond mere opinion.
Having a hearing after the judge’s statement seems redundant.
I asked this before but think it went unnoticed,
The Met Office claims that HadCET is adjusted for UHI but gives no detail how they make the adjustment. What is their method for removing UHI contamination from their data?
Geoff Sherrington (01:16:50) :
“2. It is hard to determine in retrospect when UHI started for a city. My “feel” (and it is only a feel) is that Melbourne where I live was about maxed out for UHI at its main weather station by around 1900. Thus, there could be some truth to Jones’ claim that London and Vienna UHI is now insignificant. It might be insignificant in the sense that it has levelled out since 1900 and that a change is now hard to discern. However, this overlooks the scientific requirement that an allowance for error should be deducted and to my knowledge, it has not always been.”
This is OK for concerns of temperature change if statement is accurate (small changes in Urban setting can still make a difference) but there is still a problem with the so called average temperature of the earth for any given time. This temperature is artificially too high and serves to provide impetus to their arguments that the 90’s was the hottest decade of the 20th century and 1998 was the hottest year. Additionally, they correct rural stations using urban values which agian creates an artifically high average earth temperature.
Jones’ 1990 paper saying that the Urban Heat Island in China was neglible and if extended to the whole world, would only result in 0.05C of UHI …
… was one of the primary principles on which global warming science was based.
All of the surface temperature data which was fed into the global warming formulae and theory was based on there being very little UHI.
When Jones was asked repeatedly to provide the data that backed up his finding, his answer was …
… “We have 25 or so years invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it. ”
And to this day, it has still not been provided to anyone.
And one of the fundamental conclusions of global warming science continued on for 18 years (actually GISS didn’t fully believe it and started trying to account for it in US temperatures anyway).
Now, it turns out there has been 1.0C of UHI in these same Chinese cities.
If we now extend that to the whole world, what do we get?
Well, NOTHING.
Nobody has changed the 0.05C of UHI in the global temperature record including Jones and his Hadley Centre so it has had no impact at all on anything. No climate model has been changed to account for the new numbers.
No wonder the troposphere is not warming anywhere near as fast as the models and the climate science says it should be. One-third of the surface temperature measurements contains UHI while the troposphere does not.
I imagine Matt Bennett has heard this whole story before at RealClimate so none of this will be news to him.
John Finn (10:31:19) :
Robert Wood (09:01:09) :
Satellite data.
http://i599.photobucket.com/albums/tt74/MartinGAtkins/UAH-GISS-Pub.jpg
DJ (12:38:08) :
Someone asked me the other day what “sceptics” would start talking about now that La Nina and solar minimum had passed
When did those events occur? Last I saw, the sun is still blank of sunspots and the nino index latest data is still in La nina conditions territory.
The IPCC drew that conclusion from the Jones et al 1990 Letter to Nature which examined temperature data from regions in Eastern Australia, Western USSR and Eastern China, to conclude that “In none of the three regions studied is there any indication of significant urban influence..” That has led to the IPCC claim that for decades, urban warming is less than 0.05 per century.
I’ve just uploaded a domain that looks at the Bureau of Meteorology temperature records over ~100 years for 32 locations across the 2.5 million square kilometres of Western Australia… http://www.waclimate.net
The data stretches back to 1876 and I’ve also compared the temperature histories of large vs small urban cities/towns/settlements, as well as coastal vs inland locations.
I’m a journalist, not a statistician, so I’m sure my comparisons will be criticised. However, skeptics and doomsayers will both be able to back their arguments from the results of the different comparison criteria.
There has NOT been any 21st century cooling, no matter how much you repeat that fallacy – none.
The 21st century began in 2001, of course, not 2000. Three out of four major metrics (UAH,RSS, HadCRUT, GISS) indicate cooling since then. Averaging them produced a slight cooling.
There was a severe el Nino in 1998, followed by a strong (and long) la Nina from 1999-2000. To avoid cherrypicking, one must include both of them IN, or include both of the OUT. Either method suits me.
I have certainly looked hard at your POV (mainly between about 1999 and 2003) and come to the conclusion that it is totally untenable.
‘WAY too early! The bulk of evidence has come well after that.
It takes quite some time to come to grips with all the facets of this huge problem and I will always stand ready to adjust my thinking and change my mind on the basis of contradictory evidence
Can’t ask for fairer than that, but . . .
but that is exactly what we lack.
For starters, I would argue that there are two strong pieces of evidence and an elimination of one contrary piece of evidence.
–The hockey-stick graph has been very thoroughly falsified (and refalsified when reissued).
–The lack of positive feedback and the presence of negative feedback, as indicated by the Aqua Satellite. (This is utterly devastating to IPCC projections).
–The severe problems with the data itself. Siting. Adjustment. Severe step changes created by Station moves, both undocumented and documented but ignored.
In fact, if anything, many parameters are now tracking worst case scenario or worse as outlined by the conservative IPCC 2007 report. This really concerns me.
Certainly CO2 emissions. But where’s the temperature rise? At best it is an underlying nudge, not a primary driver. QED
The Sun has been intensively studied with respect to all this and there is only ever a weak correlation and not a very predictable one at that.
There is a mere 0.1C variance from normal maximum to normal minimum. But I did not say “normal” minimum. I said “Grand Minimum”. As in Dalton. Wolf. Maunder. Spoerer.
The fact remains, one can’t get the observed warming using any combination of known natural forcings in the absence of man-made CO2. Says it all, no?
No. Sherlock Holmes Fallacy, the processes being very poorly understood. The Younger Dryas ended with a HUGE warming. around 10C in 3 years. No one has explained that with or without manmade CO2.
Besides, the half a dozen multidecadal oscillations going from cold to warm phase from 1976-2001 explain the observed warming quite nicely.
The previous warming from 1915 to the 1930s occurred without the CO2 spike since the 1950s. Then, as CO2 took off, temperatures declined until the mid 1970s. The recent rise began when the PDO went warm (to be followed by the IPO, AO, AAO, AMO, and NAO ). And now it’s headed the other way.
Not to mention the infamous MMTS conversion factor, which began around 1984 and remains ongoing.
Besides, even if CO2 IS responsible for most of the past warming how does that translate to 2.3C to 6.0C increase by 2100 without STRONG positive feedback loops?
anna v (05:10:28) :
Matt Bennett (00:05:03) :
The fact remains, one can’t get the observed warming using any combination of known natural forcings in the absence of man-made CO2. Says it all, no?
I know it’s tiresome but the true believers have a mangled logic. It goes along this line. “If you can’t explain why the climate changes it must be CO2”.
So back in time it was the gods and if not the gods then tell me what else it could be. If you can’t it must be the gods. We must sacrifice a goat and appease them. When you sacrifice one goat and the crops fail again it’s because the gods were not pleased with one goat, they need more. If you can’t explain why the crops failed for a second year, then it must be because the gods were not happy with one goat.
And then the priests of the IPPC were convened after much financial inducement unidentified that we had been feeding the demons with CO2 and this was the cause of all mankinds woes. We must sacrifice all our wicked ways with energy and live in poverty. That should force the climate to produce an abundance of poverty and mankind will be at one with mother earth.
If it doesn’t then you haven’t sacrificed enough.
MartinGAtkins (08:48:57)
Very well said. When pagan polytheistic religions dominated Europe over 2,000 years ago, men believed that we could offend Mother Earth by cutting down sacred trees or other actions. Yet we could assuage Mother Earth’s tears by human sacrifice. It seems like nothing’s changed.
“Mother Earth” doesn’t cry, really.
Neil Crafter (04:01:00) :
Matt Bennett
…
Your position seems to be that because you can’t identify what natural mechanisms may be causing the warming then it must be good old CO2. That looks more like a leap of faith.
Neil – Matt’s argument is an example of “Arguing from Ignorance”. I.e. I don’t know what is Causing It – It must therefore be …
Matt Bennett (23:54:22) :
Graeme,
If you are going to assert that the hockey stick is somehow fatally flawed (as an accurate representation of the past 1000 years or so) then I’m not going to waste time with you.
Is that because the science is settled, and the debate is over… Would you like to explain how the Hockey Stick code generates Hockey Sticks when fed random Red Noise Data?
Check the Mann studies at http://www.climateaudit.org/
… waste time with you … running away from the fight are you.
It is one of THE most scrutinised scientific products in history and has withstood all criticism. As a test of its validity, any attempt that has been made to reconstruct recent past temps (on a global scale) ends up looking almost identical- you don’t even need to take Mann’s word for it.
I keep asking for evidence – and you keep failing to provide any.
I could just as easily link to 100 pages of robust rebuttal of you points (carefully laid out so even you could understand them) over at RealClimate and at least it would be coming from scientists themselves. But really, who wants to get into a ‘my linking’s quicker than yours’ battle anyway, for that’s all these things ever amount to.
Pick your best links and put them up…
There are plenty of sceptical scientists and more keep showing up at http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=10fe77b0-802a-23ad-4df1-fc38ed4f85e3&Issue_id=
I will attempt to answer your specific points above when I’m not here at work, but for a start, who ever said cap and trade was the best solution? Where did I say that?
C&T is the most common solution and is a general question that is worth throwing into the mix.
It’s the science behind the validity of AGW that I’m trying to pin [snip] down on.
“pin down”. Excellent, could you please provide the hard, independently verifiable evidence that will pin down,
[1] Man Made emissions of CO2 cause Global Warming, and
[2] Global Warming is Bad.
And if you don’t believe it’s happening in the first place, what’s the need for measures to combat it? It must be fun living in the heady world of [snip]
Correct – I have no reason (due to the absence of evidence) to believe that Man Made Global Warming exists in any detectable form, and is leading the world to a catastrophic crisis. However you do – so what do you think of the major Policies that have been proposed to deal with AGW.
Answer me this: where does all the extra heat go that is trapped by the undeniable rise in CO2 concentrations confirmed by the Keeling Curve and dictated by 19th century physics?
Ref anna v (05:10:28) :
Matt Bennett (23:54:22) :
Answer me this: where does all the extra heat go that is trapped by the undeniable rise in CO2 concentrations confirmed by the Keeling Curve and dictated by 19th century physics?
If you could understand scientific terms, you would know there is no extra heat, just heat trapped/delayed for a while according to the equations of thermodynamics on its way to outer space. above.
In the end – I asked you for Hard, Independently Verifiable Evidence – which you have so far utterly failed to provide.
Please note that Computer Models do not count as evidence, and if you think that they are evidence – perhaps you could compare them with the financial models that have proved to be so successful (ironic) of late.
If you want to be respected on this blog – you need to provide real evidence for your position and reason effectively from it.
BTW: The tone of your words is arrogant, might I suggest that if you had real confidence in your position – you might be more emotionally secure about it and write in a more humble style.
The essence of my position is that I have not seen compelling evidence in support of the AGW position. I have also not seen compelling evidence for the existence of Ghosts, UFOs, Faires, Abominable Snowmen, and other apparent fantasies.
Show me some real evidence and I’ll adopt your position.
In the above post
I could just as easily link to 100 pages of robust rebuttal of you points (carefully laid out so even you could understand them) over at RealClimate and at least it would be coming from scientists themselves. But really, who wants to get into a ‘my linking’s quicker than yours’ battle anyway, for that’s all these things ever amount to. should be in italics as they are Matts words not my own.
Thanks for all that compilation waclimate.
Phew !!, what do you do in your spare time ?
I had never heard of the 1901 report by Cooke, must download that tomorrow when my BB usage allows. I would be sceptical about the BoM claims that early data is unreliable, it might be but they make those claims partly on a false premise. BoM people in 1991 told me the Stevenson screen was introduced to Australia in circa 1907-08 when the BoM was formed. I researched the issue and eventually had the luck in 1995 to publish a paper in IntJClim, there is evidence from 19C Intercolonial Conferences that the Stevenson screen was often in use from circa 1880.
http://www.warwickhughes.com/papers/ozstev.htm
Having just read this whole thread in one go and trying to type through bleeding eyes, I have to say that Matt Bennett’s posts sound more like devil’s advocate stuff than real comment. After all, who could honestly defend the Hockey Stick and mean it?
EW (23:30:55) :
wrote:
Indeed, the situation is not so simple. There is a station set in the very center of Prague (over 1 million people) at the former Jesuite college (Klementinum) that has record over 200 years. It is not used in the world statistics, but it’s readings are homogenized for historical purposes with the nearby rural stations. There was a study that has shown an increase in UHI effect until 60’s, but further development (although slowed down) did not influence it anymore.
Development of the City
Prague has undergone a number of radical changes. In the ten years after the fall of the communist regime in November 1989.
Perhaps the reason there was only a small increase in UHI after the 60`s is that there was little or no development until the mid 1990`s when the country‘s political system, state administration and system of local government were transformed as the market economy and private ownership were re-established, it takes time to have an effect.
http://magistrat.praha-mesto.cz/64001_Development-of-the-City
Just for Matt, too help him progress from 19th Century Physics to the 21st Century.
Matt Bennett (23:54:22) :
Answer me this: where does all the extra heat go that is trapped by the undeniable rise in CO2 concentrations confirmed by the Keeling Curve and dictated by 19th century physics?
The link below is to a paper recently published at the International Journal of Modern Physics
http://arxiv.org/abs/0707.1161
From the abstract.
Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics
Authors: Gerhard Gerlich, Ralf D. Tscheuschner
(Submitted on 8 Jul 2007 (v1), last revised 4 Mar 2009 (this version, v4))
Abstract: The atmospheric greenhouse effect, an idea that many authors trace back to the traditional works of Fourier (1824), Tyndall (1861), and Arrhenius (1896), and which is still supported in global climatology, essentially describes a fictitious mechanism, in which a planetary atmosphere acts as a heat pump driven by an environment that is radiatively interacting with but radiatively equilibrated to the atmospheric system. According to the second law of thermodynamics such a planetary machine can never exist. Nevertheless, in almost all texts of global climatology and in a widespread secondary literature it is taken for granted that such mechanism is real and stands on a firm scientific foundation. In this paper the popular conjecture is analyzed and the underlying physical principles are clarified. By showing that (a) there are no common physical laws between the warming phenomenon in glass houses and the fictitious atmospheric greenhouse effects, (b) there are no calculations to determine an average surface temperature of a planet, (c) the frequently mentioned difference of 33 degrees Celsius is a meaningless number calculated wrongly, (d) the formulas of cavity radiation are used inappropriately, (e) the assumption of a radiative balance is unphysical, (f) thermal conductivity and friction must not be set to zero, the atmospheric greenhouse conjecture is falsified.
Comments: 115 pages, 32 figures, 13 tables (some typos corrected)
Subjects: Atmospheric and Oceanic Physics (physics.ao-ph)
Journal reference: Int.J.Mod.Phys.B23:275-364,2009
DOI: 10.1142/S021797920904984X
Cite as: arXiv:0707.1161v4 [physics.ao-ph]
My emphasis is in Bold above. GR.
For DJ (16:51:28) :
>Also if the AGW Data is so solid – why is there an almost comprehensive reluctance by AGW Proponents to engage in open televised debate?
Science debates don’t play out in the media. They play out in science journals. A media debate is designed to influences minds and policy assisted by media norms which give people the false impression that the “sceptics” have science to offer.
I just love the quote.
“The atmospheric greenhouse effect, an idea that many authors trace back to the traditional works of Fourier (1824), Tyndall (1861), and Arrhenius (1896), and which is still supported in global climatology, essentially describes a fictitious mechanism, in which a planetary atmosphere acts as a heat pump driven by an environment that is radiatively interacting with but radiatively equilibrated to the atmospheric system.”
I would suggest DJ that sceptics do indeed have science to offer, and not just any science, but falsification of the foundation of the AGW science.
Hmmm…
15*10^12watts power used in world (renwables are 1*10^12). Total input from geological resources=14TW
Of interest?
44*10^12watts average total heat flux from earth’s interior
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_energy_resources_and_consumption
The Earth receives 174*10^15 of incoming solar radiation (insolation) at the upper atmosphere. Approximately 30% is reflected back to space.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_energy
Total solar radiation hitting earth is 52*10^15W
Human energy use is 14/(52*10^3) = 0.00027 of solar input
Heat Flux is 44/(52*10^3) = 0.00085 of solar input
Bill
I had never heard of the 1901 report by Cooke, must download that tomorrow when my BB usage allows. I would be sceptical about the BoM claims that early data is unreliable, it might be but they make those claims partly on a false premise. BoM people in 1991 told me the Stevenson screen was introduced to Australia in circa 1907-08 when the BoM was formed. I researched the issue and eventually had the luck in 1995 to publish a paper in IntJClim, there is evidence from 19C Intercolonial Conferences that the Stevenson screen was often in use from circa 1880.
http://www.warwickhughes.com/papers/ozstev.htm
Warwick … I suspect the 1901 analysis by Cooke is a document that’s been overlooked by most researchers of climate trends in Western Australia. You’ll find a wealth of information in it, not just re temperatures from 1876 to 1899. On page 5 there are some interesting notes from Cooke back in 1901:
“A considerable amount of labour has been entailed in checking and inspecting the old records. In a number of cases the observations were palpably erroneous, and these have been rejected.
“This has caused many gaps in the records, but it was considered better to publish only those figures which were felt to be fairly reliable.
“The resulting tables will now be found with considerable accuracy the general meteorological features of the country, and will probably be consulted largely by farmers, pastoralists, bankers, doctors, immigrants, and all those whose interests are affected in one way or another by by the climate of the country of their adoption.”
As for the capital city of Perth, a paragraph by Cooke on p7 gives further clues:
“In dealing with the figures for Perth two things should be remembered: 1st, that the thermometers were removed in August, 1885, from the neighbourhood of the Surveyor-General’s office to an octagon-shaped louvred house in the Botanical Gardens, giving apparently a slightly lower record for the later years; and 2nd, that these observations were not discontinued when the Observatory was established. A new series was started at the Observatory on 1st January, 1897, but the figures for Perth, here quoted, are those for the Botanical Gardens up to the end of 1899.”
If you check my site you’ll see a PDF link to a 1908 report on Western Australia by the Commonwealth Meteorologist. You’ll find references to the Stevenson screen from p11 and it appears that there were 15 screens in operation by 1908.
I stumbled across these ancient documents at http://www.archive.org. Search “Australia climate” and you might find treasures that have lain dormant in an American university for the past hundred years.
My comparison of the 13 common cities/towns suggests the average mean minimum across Western Australia up by .4 degrees C and the average mean maximum down by .25 degrees C from 1876-1899 to 1979-2008. i.e. Western Australia is effectively cooler than ~100 years ago. If the pre-1900 data from the Government Astronomer was considered reliable, that’s an unexpected result, to say the least.
Thanks for your link to the Stevenson screen argument. I will link it from http://www.waclimate.net
waclimate (08:18:55) :
“The IPCC drew that conclusion from the Jones et al 1990 Letter to Nature which examined temperature data from regions in Eastern Australia, ……”
I have some more data to add. You might like to contact me at sherro1@optusnet.com.au
DJ wrote:
“Science debates don’t play out in the media. They play out in science journals. A media debate is designed to influences minds and policy assisted by media norms which give people the false impression that the “sceptics” have science to offer.”
If this were some arcane scientific matter that did not affect the public in a major way, costwise, the debate could be intramural. But, since the public is being asked (indirectly) for taxes in the trillions (over the years), it has the right to consider a second opinion before accepting the IPCC diagnosis.
Anna,
You accuse me of not knowing physics and then you go ahead and deny that extra CO2 in a system traps extra heat – which is absolutely entry level physics (but then you say that it does anyway, but is only ‘delayed’ for a time) Who needs to get their story straight?
As far as the hockey stick is concerned:
“There has been significant progress on many aspects of climate reconstructions since MBH98. Firstly, there are more and better quality proxy data available. There are new methodologies such as described in Rutherford et al (2005) or Moberg et al (2005) that address recognised problems with incomplete data series and the challenge of incorporating lower resolution data into the mix. Progress is likely to continue on all these fronts. As of now, all of the ‘Hockey Team’ reconstructions (shown left) agree that the late 20th century is anomalous in the context of last millennium, and possibly the last two millennia..”
From: RealClimate.org (Dummies guide to latest hockeystick controversy)
Graeme,
For a lengthy dissertation that deals with all your qualms, I would highly recommend “Global Warming: Understanding the Forecast” (David Archer) Out of the 6 or 7 books I’ve read that are ‘for’ global warming, it is far and away the most detailed and thorough in its treatment of the physics and really breaks it down to first principles so you can understand why we face such a serious problem and how we came to be so certain about it.
The science IS IN, no matter how much people in this tiny corner of cyberspace wish it were otherwise. That is why governments, corporations and organisations the world over are committing so many $$ and man hours to try to mitigate its worst effects. I really do recommend you read the above book – no one source is going to have all your answers, but that one comes close as far as getting to the nitty gritty of the problem. Though you may feel supported and emboldened on a site like this that re-inforces your false worldview, the truth is, you are in a very small minority that is likely to become smaller as confirmation arrives over the next few years. Wanna put some money on it?