50% of observed global warming is the result of socioeconomic factors?

The logic, in a nutshell, being that if the warming is global then it should be the same in countries getting richer as in those not.

However, there\’s a discrepancy, meaning that at least some (50% is claimed) of the warming observed in rich countries is as a result of things like urban heat island effects, formerly rural stations becoming urban etc.

Anyone seen a discussion of this paper elsewhere? Any climate change warriors addressed it?

10 thoughts on “Eh?”

  1. “The logic, in a nutshell, being that if the warming is global then it should be the same in countries getting richer as in those not.”

    Without ante-ing up the 9 bucks for the paper one is stabbing in the dark but:

    Strongly developed & developing economies may occur in climates that are sensitive to climate change effects. Western civilisation itself originates out of the fertile crescent in the ME which has been climatically precarious for millennia. Maybe its the variability that drives progress. In a more stable environment the locals tend to sit & watch the grass grow.

    Conversely, data collection in developed areas depends on the collectors of the data. So many of the people involved in climate research have a vested interest in AGW that the tendency to put a thumb on the scales is cumulative. There’s a lot more of them commuting from suburbia than trekking to Andes foothills, even given the superb grants.

  2. So many of the people involved in climate research have a vested interest in AGW that the tendency to put a thumb on the scales is cumulative. There’s a lot more of them commuting from suburbia than trekking to Andes foothills, even given the superb grants.

    Occam’s Razor still takes some beating…..

  3. If ‘AGW’ is indeed more measurable in developed areas than that would seem to be an appropriate use for Occam’s razor. Unless the other theory holds. Or shall we postulate vengeful weather gods?

  4. McKitrick presented this at the Heartland conference in NY. He also discussed the IPCC and RealClimate’s attempts to refute it which appear to have failed dismally. He has a good record as the guy who successfully destroyed the hockey stick.

    I’m not a scientist so I tend to steer clear of the scientific debate but this is more statistics and seems very solid.

  5. Another point is that stations seem to be dropping out of the network, generally those where it is cold and nobody wants to live there any more. Another bias creeping in.

    The problems with temperature monitoring are being documented at surfacestations.org, which can perhaps best be accessed through:

    http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/

    By a handy coincidence, Anthony Watts has today put up a report from the 1930s discussing, ahem, sudden global warming.

  6. Sat here, looking out onto feet of snow and awaiting the next ice-storm, come give me some warming – please!

    The last two years here have been mild – this winter it is back to normal. Tons and tons of snow that won’t shift until June. Someone will have to convince me of global warming or catastrophic climate change.

  7. Vulnerable parts of the Global Warming doctrine include (1) Climate Scientists are inept (or improper) theoretical physicists, and their mathematical models are bilge. This paper is not about that.
    (2) Climate Scientists are inept (or improper) observational physicists, and their “measurements” are bilge. That’s what this paper argues.
    Sounds plausible to me, but let critical scrutiny ensue – after all, it always does ensue for those who oppose the doctrine.

Leave a Reply

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