Not exact matches
And while some warming delusionists have tried to claim
biases associated
with urban heat islands (the most recent effort, led by Anthony Watts, was a total fizzle) an IPCC admission that the planet had only warmed half as much as we thought would be a big story indeed.
2) Some stations must be
biased warm by
urban heat islands, but their influence on the global trend can't be detected
with any of the techniques available for separating
urban and non-
urban stations.
Having worked
with many of the scientists in question, I can say
with certainty that there is no grand conspiracy to artificially warm the earth; rather, scientists are doing their best to interpret large datasets
with numerous
biases such as station moves, instrument changes, time of observation changes,
urban heat island
biases, and other so - called inhomogenities that have occurred over the last 150 years.
When I said «There are also significant positive minimum temperature
biases from
urban heat islands that add a trend
bias up to 0.2 C nationwide to raw readings», I should have said «There are also significant positive minimum temperature
biases from
urban heat islands,
with urban stations warming up to 0.2 C faster than rural stations».
Since then, a growing number of surface temperature measurement stations worldwide, coupled
with improved methods for correcting for
biases induced through
urban heat island effects and other station siting and operational issues, have allowed for the development of accurate global temperature estimates.
This is called the
urban heat bias, and as
with solar effects, scientists tended to think the effect, while real, was relatively minor.