[ExI] Living temperature dataset

[Rafal Smigrodzki]

On Sun, Dec 13, 2009 at 8:46 AM, Alfio Puglisi <alfio.puglisi at gmail.com> wrote:

>>
>> http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/09/picking-out-the-uhi-in-global-temperature-records-so-easy-a-6th-grader-can-do-it/
>>
>> - please watch it and read the article before commenting.
>
> Wow. A video with a 6th grader and his dad, who say that UHI exists. And I
> have to watch it, otherwise I'm not qualified to comment! You think I'm
> going to take you seriously after this?

### So, you didn't watch it.
--------------
>
> I can play this game too: the following article:
> http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/the-surface-temperature-record-and-the-urban-heat-island/
>
> references two papers: one in Journal of Climate and one in Nature. Please
> read them before commenting.

### Yeah, I read the post, and the Nature article. Interestingly, the
embedded link in the post is broken. This tells me you didn't read the
Nature "paper" (which in fact is a so called "brief communication").

Furthermore, the post and the linked articles do not address the
issues raised by our 6th grader. If you read both of them, you would
have noticed it.

-----------------------
>
> This is a valid concern, but observations show the opposite: the warming is
> higher where there is no UHI effect to correct for, like in the Arctic. See
> for example
> http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2006/02/warming-due-to-urban-heat-island.php
>
### Alfio, the blog post you reference does not address the issue
raised by our 6th grader. If you read both of them, you would have
noticed it.

OK, to summarize:

1) I pointed to a communication raising a specific technical issue
with raw continental US climate record.

2) You responded by inundating me with irrelevant links (some of which
you didn't even read yourself).

3) The posts you link to are generic brush-off that have been used
since 2004 or 2006 in response to the UHI question. The 2004
realclimate post is using funny assumptions to analyze a corrupt
database (how corrupt see http://www.surfacestations.org/ - the graph
shows the fraction of weather stations which fail government
guidelines regarding siting of weather stations). The 2006
scienceblogs post is based on an analysis of a corrupt database (for
how corrupt, see for example
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/13/frigid-folly-uhi-siting-issues-and-adjustments-in-antarctic-ghcn-data/
- a single thermometer is the basis of the Antarctic "warming"
referenced, among others, in the post). Based on my reading of
communications from both sides of this scientific controversy, and
based on my technical understanding of the issues involved, my
considered opinion is that both of your references are old, irrelevant
garbage that doesn't address the issue I raised.

4) There appears to be a pattern here and in our previous exchange of
you responding to my technical questions by inundating me with poorly
relevant links of low technical merit (and in contrast to you, I
actually read both sides of the story).

5) You also allowed yourself to lecture me on the law of conservation
of energy, insisting that it is relevant to the questions I raised,
and thereby insinuating I might be insufficiently familiar with basic
physics to be competent to judge the issues at hand.

6) Do not lecture me on the law of conservation of energy.

7) Do not waste my time.

Rafal