The allegations by British mathematician Douglas J Keenan concern the following 2 papers co-authored by Wei-Chyung Wang, a professor at the University at Albany, State University of New York:
Jones P.D., Groisman P.Y., Coughlan M., Plummer N., Wang W.-C., Karl T.R. (1990), "Assessment of urbanization effects in time series of surface air temperature over land", Nature, 347: 169-172.
Wang W.-C., Zeng Z., Karl T.R. (1990), "Urban heat islands in China", Geophysical Research Letters, 17: 2377-2380.
The pdf of Keenan's report is here and an appraisal is here.
The report concludes:
First, there has been a marked lack of integrity in some important work on global warming that is relied upon by the IPCC. Second, the insignificance of urbanization effects on temperature measurements has not been established as reliably as the IPCC assessment report assumes.
You can hear the crickets chirping from here ....
Ian Mott - "Simplistic crap, Ender, and you know it. "
And that would be different from your simplistic crap - how? At least my simplistic crap is supported by the science.
"And of course winds blow. But for most winds, bar the jetstream, the speed is low and, on a continental scale, they merely shift concentrations of CO2 to other parts of the continent."
So you would not expect dust from the Sahara to seed the Amazon would you? But it does - hmmm perhaps a bit of CO2 goes along with the dust.
http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2007/03/09/saharan-dust-savior-of-the-amazon-rainforests/
Simplistic crap, Ender, and you know it.
Clouds are also a greenhouse agent but they are also a radiative element. They heat AND they cool and they float around in the CO2 in ways that can either render the CO2 redundant or reduce the efficiency of CO2 as a forcing agent.
And of course winds blow. But for most winds, bar the jetstream, the speed is low and, on a continental scale, they merely shift concentrations of CO2 to other parts of the continent. So my statement holds. A continent that produces 25+% of global emissions with 2% of the surface area is likely to be the first candidate to show a warming outside the historical range.
No sign of it yet though.
Pirate Pete - Completely agree with you on the scientific method thing so lets have a look at some of the key AGW pillars.
Hypothesis - burning fossil fuels releases carbon dioxide.
Prediction - burning a quantity of coal will release CO2
Observation - When burnt coal is observed to release CO2 which is measured
Repeat for oil gas etc
Conclusion - burning fossil fuels release CO2
Hypothesis - CO2 is a greenhouse gas
Prediction - CO2 will absorb longwave radiation of a specific wavelength.
Observation - Experiments show that CO2 does indeed absorb longwave radiation.
Conclusion - CO2 is proven to be a greenhouse gas.
Hypothesis - CO2 from burning fossil fuels will build up in the atmosphere.
Prediction - CO2 levels should be elevated and should have the fossil isotopic ratio.
Observation - Co2 levels are 380ppm up from a historical record of 270ppm and the isotopic ratio of the CO2 is consistent with fossil carbon.
Conclusion - CO2 from human activity is building up in the atmosphere.
Care to refute any of these? This is basically how the enhanced greenhouse effect was discovered by scientists using the scientific method. So what is wrong?
If you want the detailed list with references I suggest that you look at Spencer's excellent history.
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm
BTW McIntyre did not replicate MBH98 that was left to the 6 other studies that followed that got the same results.
BTW2 the IPCC does not peer review anything as it is a UN body that uses peer reviewed work to produce reports.
BTW3 - McIntyre has not changed anything at all because in the whole huge massive field of science his 'auditing' is but the tiniest bacteria. It is really akin to chucking a sugar cube into the ocean and saying it is sweeter.