Global Warming Urban Heat Effect

And they passed peer review. Where's your peer-review?

@KarenRei, I don't know to whom your last post was directed, but the demand for peer-reviewed research has become the great warmist cop-out. You know full well that the AGW establishment, as personified by Jones, et al, have made it extraordinarily difficult for skeptics to get their papers peer reviewed or published.

@KarenRei, so as someone who seems to know her stuff, please argue your case with the facts. Given the hyper-political environment and the antagonism toward skeptics in the AGW debate, neither possession of peer-reviewed studies or lack thereof means anything.

No, there's no a 70 year cycle, and it's pretty dumb to insinuate that from a statistically insignificant grouping of 70 year periods. The post-1930s cooling was due to the increase in aerosols from coal-burning power plants, in particular SOx (the primary cause of volcanic winter). Once we started scrubbing them, this temporary masking effect was halted.

KarenRei- Document your statements please.
incorrect methods- List them.
US hasnt warmed on average - a conclusion of the IPCC- Where does IPCC say this?

Fact: IPCC says North America got 1deg warmer in 20th century.
Source:IPCC 2007 Tech Sum p.61 FigTS.22 & p.75 Fig TS.29
It's online at the IPCC site.

Have you even read the IPCC reports?

Are you saying that ALL that 1deg change was due to Canada & Greenland?

Yes, actually, I have. Not all of the reports, but about half of the AR4 technical reports.

Of course the temperature change from North America was due to the high latitudes. First off, Canada has significantly more land mass than the US, and secondly, EVERY dataset shows most of the 20th century temperature anomalies concentrated in the high latitudes.

I don't have the AR4 reports on here, but I'm pretty sure "A closer look at United States and global surface temperature change" is cited.

Karen
Please cite refs. for increased anomolies vs latitude. Im interested.

BTW, Im not a CC *denier*, but I do believe the urban data has contaminated and exaggerated the warming. Its obvious that the urban effects have NOT been CORRECTLY *detrended*or they would agree closer. Plotting corrected, adjusted, combined, homogenized, fiddled or otherwise tortured data shows this.
Any real *global* warming should show up in the rural stations alone, if indeed the warming has been *global*.

Using sites that have *urbanized*( incr therm mass & extra heat sources) contaminates the *global* signal by introducing very *localized* temp effects, which *bias* the overall data toward warming.

Example: I put 6 temp stations on my 640 acres to measure long-term climate change. Later I build a greenhouse around one of the stations. The other 5 temps dont change over time, but the avg goes up because of the higher temps of the GH station. Has climate changed on my sq mile of the globe? No!

Now, instead of the greenhouse, I build my house next to that station, surround it with blacktop, put my central AC unit right under it & build a big heavy brick bbq beside it. Over time, the other 5 temps stay constant but avg temp goes up because my *urban* station temp increased. Has climate changed on my sq mile of the globe? No. Is it proper to *homogenize* the stations and change temps of the other 5? No. The true measure of climate change would be found by eliminating my *urbanized* data.

BOTTOM LINE: to *ACCURATELY* determine long term climate(temp) change, URBAN SITES SHOULD NOT BE USED. IPCC denies a UHI *contamination* problem, but they are wrong.

NOAA is setting up a new U.S. Climate Reference Network for the express purpose of detecting the national signal of climate change.

Google USCRN, then look at the photos of ALL 120 stations. THEY ARE ALL RURAL! WHY? Because climate scientists KNOW that urban sites contaminate the data over time. Case closed.