Just a quicky on what will probably become a fairly large story:A difference in the way British and American ships measured the temperature of the ocean during the 1940s may explain why the world appeared to undergo a period of sudden cooling immediately after the Second World War.
[...]
The scientists point out that the British measurements were taken by throwing canvas buckets over the side and hauling water up to the deck for temperatures to be measured by immersing a thermometer for several minutes, which would result in a slightly cooler record because of evaporation from the bucket.
This finding actually makes the AGW story go more smoothly:
Professor Jones said that the study lends support to the idea that a period of global cooling occurred later during the mid-twentieth century as a result of sulphate aerosols being released during the 1950s with the rise of industrial output. These sulphates tended to cut sunlight, counteracting global warming caused by rising carbon dioxide.
"This finding supports the sulphates argument, because it was bit hard to explain how they could cause the period of cooling from 1945, when industrial production was still relatively low," Professor Jones said.
Although its perhaps a bit of an embarrassment.
And the weird thing is, Steve McIntyre seems to have got to this one first. Too bad Steve grinds out blog posts rather than writing up a real paper now and again.
Go through the links for details. The James Annan post ( through "a bit of...") is especially good.
6 comments:
Steve McIntyre would not support your side of the debate. You probably know that given you at one point were disputing his revelation of how the "Hockey Stick" graph was bullshit. I never did see a retraction from you btw.
The real problem with McIntyre is that he is a "quant" guy. He can show errors in methods and data but it would hardly be considered a scientific paper.
He would be a really good peer reviewer but it is unlikely that the IPCC would hire a non-believer.
He would be a really good peer reviewer but it is unlikely that the IPCC would hire a non-believer.
You "conservatives" are so lucky. You can say things like this and never worry about retracting the way you insist everyone else do all the time.
Do you even know what's involved in peer review? Have you ever engaged in it or had a publication subjected to it?
The IPCC clearly doesn't know because nothing has be peer reviewed. Peer review is usually conducted anonymously yet the IPCC reject that route.
Perhaps you don't know.
Clearly there is a broader agenda and to believe there aren't financial or professional rewards associated with white washing the stink that passes for science at the IPCC is to be hopelessly blind or stupid. Which are you Ti-guy?
Heh. Well, at least that's honest.
There's hope for you yet, Dainty.
Dante, There was never any reason for me to retract. When Climate Audit analysed surface temps after having removed Watts "bad" stations, they essentially vindicated the NOAA.
Well we cant stop it but not to late according to Mr. Al Gore.
Maria[man suit]
Post a Comment