Of course nothing you posted is true!Really, Truely, didn't happen that way.. The observation was the parking lots, asphalt and air conditioners had encroached on already sited stations over those 30 years. Which caused a differential trend in those readings. And when the lead author of BEST validated that complaint -- he then proceeded to process the data without tackling the task of sorting all that out.. In fact, most of data preps for surface temp readings still ignore Urban Heating Island effects and hand wave the justifications for doing so. When CLEARLY, any idiot can see that urban/suburban readings are different and biased.
Doesn't matter. Because the whole concept of measuring 0.1degC change in surface temperature by averaging spotty and irregular surface temp measurements from 20,000 thermometers all over the globe is obsolete. and I will prefer to believe the satellite data or REGIONAL preps of the surface stations.
A SINGLE averaged number like that --- doesn't really describe Global Climate Change very well anyway.. And that's a fact..
Richard Muller on BEST, skeptics, the Urban Heat Island and future plans - transcript | Carbon Brief
There were issues about station quality - Anthony Watts had shown that many of the stations had poor quality. We had studied that in great detail. Fortunately, we discovered that station quality did not affect the results. Even poor stations reflect temperature changes accurately.
Two more things. The urban heat island effect. That was something we studied I think in a clever and original way. [As opposed to] using all the stations, we could derive the temperature rise based only on rural stations. We got the same answer.
The dumb act!You got caught lying and you think that makes you credible!
UAH have already been caught fudging the data, no wonder you like their data.
Lying about what? I said that Muller ACKNOWLEDGED the bias in the surface data and then waved his hands to ignore doing the work to remove it.. You're the one that doesn't understand the diff between Muller's statement of "DERIVING the rise in temp." from biased data and promulgating that bias into an averaged data set...
UAH hasn't fudged ANYTHING with the surface data. Their US data prep does match closer to satellite observations BECAUSE they rationally correct for urbanization. To see how badly Muller is covering his ass --- go to NOAA and see what they've done to justify UPPING the temperatures for UHI effect. THEY don't agree it doesn't exist. Wanna argue with them? They've used that as a further excuse to muck incessantly with the datasets.
And UAH got caught using the opposite sign to correct for diurnal satellite drift turning global warming into global cooling.
Water LONG gone under the bridge.. You ever work in high-end science? Can you tell the diff between a mistake and data larceny?
Here's what data larceny looks like....
If you take the OFFICIAL US temp record (USHCN) from NOAA with all the tinkering and adjustments and SUBTRACT from that the SIMPLER UAH data prep using population density adjustment ONLY -- you get THAT.. WhatevertheFuck it is.. That jump of 0.35degC in 1997-1998 --- You think that happened? Of course not. That's a decade of warming in just a couple years. It's an artifact left from screwing so much with the data set.
There's a motivation for beating up on UAH because they are a lead facility for satellite analysis. And warmers don't like satellites.. They like 20,000 thermometers randomly placed and picked over the globe.. Makes discussions like this even relevent. Otherwise, we'd all be using the same numbers..