Arctic sea ice hits a new low for January.

[elektra]

I say no more measuring ice, fire the government employees, all of them. They are a burden to society.

But on the scientific side of things, the information is useless.

 

[elektra]

Many who can not understand the things in our world get very angry and hostile when confronted with the simple logic.

The government measured the ice today, on 1,000,000 years when man looks back, is that measurment significant or insignificant.

The tragedy of our money wasted paying for the career of Ice Measuring Scientist is that is money taken from those Scientist who trying to cure cancer in children.

Think about it, we have a team of scientist studying and measuring Ice in the Artic, we have anothet 40 Scientists literally stuck in the ice of the Antartica. We have scientist spending thier careers measuring the temperature minute by minute. We have other teams meausuring carbon. We have entire departments in hundreds Universities arguin what all these insignificant details mean.

All while there is no cure for cancer?

While children starve as they watch these same scientists take thier corn and burn it up as fuel?

And in the end, right or wrong, what do they accomplish, NOTHING!

 

[IanC]

one of the big complaints about paleoreconstructions is that they 'peek' at the data and results before they choose which data and methodologies they will use in the final paper.

Evidence? Links? Proof?

I believe the same type of pre formed conclusions also affect the construction of global datasets.

Evidence? Links? Proof?

there are a great many degrees of freedom available, and it seems as if every 'improvement' adds to the trend.

Evidence? Links? Proof?

I may just be suspicious

No "may" about it. You are beyond suspicious. You have bought into the unsupportable paranoid fantasy to which all deniers are forced to resort and it colors everything you say here.

the investigation into Karl's pausebuster paper should already have been given the information they requested. I have no doubt that some of the communication would be embarrassing and easily taken 'the wrong way'. but I highly doubt that there was actual fraud there. just somewhat biased choices to get the most favourable results possible out of the available data.

There should have been no "investigation". The way to check science is with more science, not bullshit investigations intended to smear reputations and give false and deceptive impressions and based entirely on preconceptions, bias, prejudice and assumptions of guilt. You pushing such slime while attempting to appear reasonable and objective make me sick to my stomach.

crick - you dont respond to my reasonable questions on subjects that YOU have brought up, and have agreed that my trying to converse with you is unwelcome. so why are you asking questions and demanding answers from me?

Karl15 was criticized by many scientists for the unusual type of adjustments and assumptions that they used. one of the main complaints was forcing the good buoy SST data to agree with the poor previous data and trend from buckets and engine intakes. one of the uses of the investigation will be to see the reasoning behind this decision, and how different scenarios produced different results in the temperature record. if the progression to the final decision was warranted then I see no problem with releasing the preliminary results and the discussion that accompanied them. it is after all a govt agency that is helping to provide information to be used in Billion Dollar Decisions. if arbitrary decisions on methodology were made primarily on a favourable outcome then the sooner this problem is corrected, the better.

 

[IanC]

Many who can not understand the things in our world get very angry and hostile when confronted with the simple logic.

The government measured the ice today, on 1,000,000 years when man looks back, is that measurment significant or insignificant.

The tragedy of our money wasted paying for the career of Ice Measuring Scientist is that is money taken from those Scientist who trying to cure cancer in children.

Think about it, we have a team of scientist studying and measuring Ice in the Artic, we have anothet 40 Scientists literally stuck in the ice of the Antartica. We have scientist spending thier careers measuring the temperature minute by minute. We have other teams meausuring carbon. We have entire departments in hundreds Universities arguin what all these insignificant details mean.

All while there is no cure for cancer?

While children starve as they watch these same scientists take thier corn and burn it up as fuel?

And in the end, right or wrong, what do they accomplish, NOTHING!

CO2 theory of Global warming has been a black hole of science, sucking in far more than its proper share of funding. leaving other areas underfunded.

Australia seems to have finally got the message that the science is settled, so they have deeply slashed funding for climate science. perhaps other countries shoudl do the same. often when there is a glut of available money it simply gets wasted on more and more levels of bureaucratic oversight.

 

[Old Rocks]

I say no more measuring ice, fire the government employees, all of them. They are a burden to society.

But on the scientific side of things, the information is useless.

OK, Mr. Elektra, that is your opinion on science in general, that it is useless. And when the climate changes in such a way that you are negatively impacted, you will scream about how those useless scientists didn't warn you, even though you took their funding for study of the factors affecting you from them. That is the 'Conservative' way.

Fortunately, the vast majority of American Citizens are smarter than that, and will continue to fund science.

 

[Old Rocks]

Many who can not understand the things in our world get very angry and hostile when confronted with the simple logic.

The government measured the ice today, on 1,000,000 years when man looks back, is that measurment significant or insignificant.

The tragedy of our money wasted paying for the career of Ice Measuring Scientist is that is money taken from those Scientist who trying to cure cancer in children.

Think about it, we have a team of scientist studying and measuring Ice in the Artic, we have anothet 40 Scientists literally stuck in the ice of the Antartica. We have scientist spending thier careers measuring the temperature minute by minute. We have other teams meausuring carbon. We have entire departments in hundreds Universities arguin what all these insignificant details mean.

All while there is no cure for cancer?

While children starve as they watch these same scientists take thier corn and burn it up as fuel?

And in the end, right or wrong, what do they accomplish, NOTHING!

CO2 theory of Global warming has been a black hole of science, sucking in far more than its proper share of funding. leaving other areas underfunded.

Australia seems to have finally got the message that the science is settled, so they have deeply slashed funding for climate science. perhaps other countries shoudl do the same. often when there is a glut of available money it simply gets wasted on more and more levels of bureaucratic oversight.

Well now, Mr. Ian, we have just had the warmest two years on record, one of them a neutral ENSO year. Yet you are suggesting that we slash or cease to fund climate research. And the present Arctic Ice is the lowest since we have had to means to record it on a daily basis. Yet you are suggesting that we slash or cease to fund climate research.

Well, this is definitely going to be one of the issues in the upcoming elections. You had better hope that 2016 is kinder to your twaddle than 2015 has been.

 

[jc456]

I say no more measuring ice, fire the government employees, all of them. They are a burden to society.

But on the scientific side of things, the information is useless.

OK, Mr. Elektra, that is your opinion on science in general, that it is useless. And when the climate changes in such a way that you are negatively impacted, you will scream about how those useless scientists didn't warn you, even though you took their funding for study of the factors affecting you from them. That is the 'Conservative' way.

Fortunately, the vast majority of American Citizens are smarter than that, and will continue to fund science.

evidence which is not available. Dude, how is the arctic ice melting? I mean why is it supposedly warmer, even though there are no thermometers up there to tell you that. Anyway, how is it warming?

 

[Crick]

one of the big complaints about paleoreconstructions is that they 'peek' at the data and results before they choose which data and methodologies they will use in the final paper.

Evidence? Links? Proof?

I believe the same type of pre formed conclusions also affect the construction of global datasets.

Evidence? Links? Proof?

there are a great many degrees of freedom available, and it seems as if every 'improvement' adds to the trend.

Evidence? Links? Proof?

I may just be suspicious

No "may" about it. You are beyond suspicious. You have bought into the unsupportable paranoid fantasy to which all deniers are forced to resort and it colors everything you say here.

the investigation into Karl's pausebuster paper should already have been given the information they requested. I have no doubt that some of the communication would be embarrassing and easily taken 'the wrong way'. but I highly doubt that there was actual fraud there. just somewhat biased choices to get the most favourable results possible out of the available data.

There should have been no "investigation". The way to check science is with more science, not bullshit investigations intended to smear reputations and give false and deceptive impressions and based entirely on preconceptions, bias, prejudice and assumptions of guilt. You pushing such slime while attempting to appear reasonable and objective make me sick to my stomach.

crick - you dont respond to my reasonable questions on subjects that YOU have brought up, and have agreed that my trying to converse with you is unwelcome. so why are you asking questions and demanding answers from me?

Karl15 was criticized by many scientists for the unusual type of adjustments and assumptions that they used. one of the main complaints was forcing the good buoy SST data to agree with the poor previous data and trend from buckets and engine intakes. one of the uses of the investigation will be to see the reasoning behind this decision, and how different scenarios produced different results in the temperature record. if the progression to the final decision was warranted then I see no problem with releasing the preliminary results and the discussion that accompanied them. it is after all a govt agency that is helping to provide information to be used in Billion Dollar Decisions. if arbitrary decisions on methodology were made primarily on a favourable outcome then the sooner this problem is corrected, the better.

That anyone on the denier side of this argument should insist that only good science be used to make expensive government decisions is as laughable as laughable can get.

 

[elektra]

OK, Mr. Elektra, that is your opinion on science in general, that it is useless. And when the climate changes in such a way that you are negatively impacted, you will scream about how those useless scientists didn't warn you, even though you took their funding for study of the factors affecting you from them. That is the 'Conservative' way.

Fortunately, the vast majority of American Citizens are smarter than that, and will continue to fund science.

Old Crock, you do not get to dictate what my position on science is so you can win your phony argument.

And there you have it if someone offers a bit of common sense, the Climate Warming NAZI's attack, they call us stupid, and reiterate the unsubstantiated claim that the all powerful government with thier scientists are here to save the world.

That is extremist ideology, only a bigger government dictating how I live can save the world.

 

[flacaltenn]

.......................... You were sooo close to being right Roxy.. Go ahead use a calculator...

What happpened there? A GW warming caused forest fire start in your den?

No, a phone call came in from my brother about a funeral for a death in the family. Hit the post button without thinking about it.

So, the decline for the average for those ten year periods is about 7%. So, what has happened to the decline of the lowest extent, and how does that relate to the the decline of the highest extent?

For the lowest extent, in September, from 1979 to 1989, is about 5.25 million square kilometers. For 2005 to 2015, it is about 3.25 million square kilometers. That is about a 38% decline. That is very significant.

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.area.arctic.png

Heck I was gonna give 9% on the January ice number !! Matthew is still calculating I guess.
Is the summer gap REALLY that surprising? I don't think so.. Ice melts at 32deg. And you got about 60 day window determining the magnitude of that event. So it could either be 6 days at 33degF or 60 days at 32.1degF.. Approx -- the same volume of ice melt. So at SOME POINT -- that extra 1.0deg in warming is gonna melt a SHIPLOAD of ice isn't it? It's a very non-linear and non-interesting effect of Global Warming. Because that summer melt is not so much an indicator of the SIZE of the global warming effect -- it's more of a threshold at which there WILL be ice or there WONT be ice at peak summer.. ICE -- is a terrible thermometer. (As are tree rings and mud bugs and ice cores)

Yes, and that melt, and open water, changes the way the jet stream acts, which affects our weather and agriculture. That melt affects the rapidity of the melt of the permafrost. Then we have the problem of how much additiional GHGs that the melt is releasing. And that melt, and that of the clathrates are both unknowns. We simply don't know whether that will be rapid, or slow. And if it is rapid, how is that going to affect the climate. A grand experiment that we are running, with no controls and no going back, no matter how it turns out.

Ever occur to you that dark open COLD WATER is a new MASSIVE carbon sink also? Capable of sinking more CO2 than the equivalent area of a forest?

The issue I have today is what CO2 in the Arctic? Satellites don't show it, no human lives there. So what CO2?

Hope you're kidding. My sympathies if you're not. There is no FREON in the Antarctic -- but that's where the giant Ozone hole opened up.. Weather, Jet Streams, convection, and Tropical convergence zones do more than a great job of mixing up that CO2.. And should the summer arctic suddenly become ice-free ---- it will suck more CO2 into it than a hot mama at Carnaval.

 

[jc456]

No, a phone call came in from my brother about a funeral for a death in the family. Hit the post button without thinking about it.

So, the decline for the average for those ten year periods is about 7%. So, what has happened to the decline of the lowest extent, and how does that relate to the the decline of the highest extent?

For the lowest extent, in September, from 1979 to 1989, is about 5.25 million square kilometers. For 2005 to 2015, it is about 3.25 million square kilometers. That is about a 38% decline. That is very significant.

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.area.arctic.png

Heck I was gonna give 9% on the January ice number !! Matthew is still calculating I guess.
Is the summer gap REALLY that surprising? I don't think so.. Ice melts at 32deg. And you got about 60 day window determining the magnitude of that event. So it could either be 6 days at 33degF or 60 days at 32.1degF.. Approx -- the same volume of ice melt. So at SOME POINT -- that extra 1.0deg in warming is gonna melt a SHIPLOAD of ice isn't it? It's a very non-linear and non-interesting effect of Global Warming. Because that summer melt is not so much an indicator of the SIZE of the global warming effect -- it's more of a threshold at which there WILL be ice or there WONT be ice at peak summer.. ICE -- is a terrible thermometer. (As are tree rings and mud bugs and ice cores)

Yes, and that melt, and open water, changes the way the jet stream acts, which affects our weather and agriculture. That melt affects the rapidity of the melt of the permafrost. Then we have the problem of how much additiional GHGs that the melt is releasing. And that melt, and that of the clathrates are both unknowns. We simply don't know whether that will be rapid, or slow. And if it is rapid, how is that going to affect the climate. A grand experiment that we are running, with no controls and no going back, no matter how it turns out.

Ever occur to you that dark open COLD WATER is a new MASSIVE carbon sink also? Capable of sinking more CO2 than the equivalent area of a forest?

The issue I have today is what CO2 in the Arctic? Satellites don't show it, no human lives there. So what CO2?

Hope you're kidding. My sympathies if you're not. There is no FREON in the Antarctic -- but that's where the giant Ozone hole opened up.. Weather, Jet Streams, convection, and Tropical convergence zones do more than a great job of mixing up that CO2.. And should the summer arctic suddenly become ice-free ---- it will suck more CO2 into it than a hot mama at Carnaval.

so if CO2 is so well mixed, why is the Arctic supposedly warming faster than anywhere else on the planet? It has no human activity, concrete, asphalt to add warmth, so I'm confused on how that area of the planet can be warming the most.

 

[flacaltenn]

Heck I was gonna give 9% on the January ice number !! Matthew is still calculating I guess.
Is the summer gap REALLY that surprising? I don't think so.. Ice melts at 32deg. And you got about 60 day window determining the magnitude of that event. So it could either be 6 days at 33degF or 60 days at 32.1degF.. Approx -- the same volume of ice melt. So at SOME POINT -- that extra 1.0deg in warming is gonna melt a SHIPLOAD of ice isn't it? It's a very non-linear and non-interesting effect of Global Warming. Because that summer melt is not so much an indicator of the SIZE of the global warming effect -- it's more of a threshold at which there WILL be ice or there WONT be ice at peak summer.. ICE -- is a terrible thermometer. (As are tree rings and mud bugs and ice cores)

Yes, and that melt, and open water, changes the way the jet stream acts, which affects our weather and agriculture. That melt affects the rapidity of the melt of the permafrost. Then we have the problem of how much additiional GHGs that the melt is releasing. And that melt, and that of the clathrates are both unknowns. We simply don't know whether that will be rapid, or slow. And if it is rapid, how is that going to affect the climate. A grand experiment that we are running, with no controls and no going back, no matter how it turns out.

Ever occur to you that dark open COLD WATER is a new MASSIVE carbon sink also? Capable of sinking more CO2 than the equivalent area of a forest?

The issue I have today is what CO2 in the Arctic? Satellites don't show it, no human lives there. So what CO2?

Hope you're kidding. My sympathies if you're not. There is no FREON in the Antarctic -- but that's where the giant Ozone hole opened up.. Weather, Jet Streams, convection, and Tropical convergence zones do more than a great job of mixing up that CO2.. And should the summer arctic suddenly become ice-free ---- it will suck more CO2 into it than a hot mama at Carnaval.

so if CO2 is so well mixed, why is the Arctic supposedly warming faster than anywhere else on the planet? It has no human activity, concrete, asphalt to add warmth, so I'm confused on how that area of the planet can be warming the most.

Because -- contrary to the "general wisdom" of Climate Science, the earth is not one unified climate zone. They reduce the "climate sensitivities to one silly globalized number and than fight over that. There are MANY climate zones with different sensitivities to applied forcings. Whether those forcings come from GH gases or the sun. So the Polar regions respond differently.

In fact -- the Arctic has a higher over-all summer solar irradiance than say Banff in Canada BC. Because of the lack of "night". It also is different because it's mostly OCEAN rather than land. It also has larger changes in Albedo seasonally than most of the rest of the planet.

But MOSTLY --- the temperature stations in "the Arctic" are MASSIVELY more subjected to "urban heating" than other places. VAST lack of coverage for temperature stations in the Arctic. So if your winter temps are -20degF -- placing a weather station ANYWHERE in the proximity of human habitation is gonna have a larger effect on readings.

This is backed up by studies that show the UHI effect contributes up to 6 or 8 DEGF in most habited places. AND that the effect has a broader area affected than it would in a temperate zone.

 

[mamooth]

Flac still doesn't grasp the different between UHI and _trend_ in UHI. He tells us UHI exists, which everyone already knows, and is accounted for, and which has no effect on temperature trend. In order for flac's conspiracy to hold water, the UHI _trend_ in the arctic would have to be bigger than the UHI trend elsewhere. And it's not.

Hence, UHI has jack to do with the observed arctic warming. Flac should be embarrassed to have botched something so basic so very badly.

In sea ice news, the total global sea ice level -- combined Arctic and Antarctic -- just hit an all-time record low, due to below-normal levels in both the Arctic and Antarctic. So the denier "But what about the Antarctic!" talking point now crashes and burns. The list of denier talking points grows thin.

Global sea ice area record minimum

 

[flacaltenn]

Flac still doesn't grasp the different between UHI and _trend_ in UHI. He tells us UHI exists, which everyone already knows, and is accounted for, and which has no effect on temperature trend. In order for flac's conspiracy to hold water, the UHI _trend_ in the arctic would have to be bigger than the UHI trend elsewhere. And it's not.

Hence, UHI has jack to do with the observed arctic warming. Flac should be embarrassed to have botched something so basic so very badly.

In sea ice news, the total global sea ice level -- combined Arctic and Antarctic -- just hit an all-time record low, due to below-normal levels in both the Arctic and Antarctic. So the denier "But what about the Antarctic!" talking point now crashes and burns. The list of denier talking points grows thin.

Global sea ice area record minimum

At least I'm not confused about UHI having any effect on sea ice..

Why do you think NOAA/NASA has to steal Arctic coverage from the satellites that they hate so much?
UHI at the very few temperature stations that exist up there is a HUGE effect.

And everything I said about the sillyness of merging the "climate sensitivities" into a single global is absolutely correct. How many papers you want me to produce showing a RADICALLY different climate sensitivity for the Arctic there SquidWard?? (probably wouldn't do that for you anyways).

Get bent -- back INTO reality..

 

[IanC]

Flac still doesn't grasp the different between UHI and _trend_ in UHI. He tells us UHI exists, which everyone already knows, and is accounted for, and which has no effect on temperature trend. In order for flac's conspiracy to hold water, the UHI _trend_ in the arctic would have to be bigger than the UHI trend elsewhere. And it's not.

mamooth agrees that UHI exists, I am assuming that he thinks that it is positive and warms the surroundings.

mamooth claims that it has been dealt with in the temperature records. I have shown that GISS adjustments for UHI are combined for a net of zero. Berkeley Earth goes that one better and actually claims UHI is negative and therefore adjusts recent temperatures up, if you can believe it.

Barrow Alaska has a measured UHI of ~2C. At some point in its past it had fewer people and/or used less fuel for heating and working, therefore the UHI was less. The gradual creep up to 2C UHI cannot be separated out of the temperature record, it can only be estimated and removed by some sort of correction. Has it been corrected? Perhaps. GISS used to give working notes on individual stations that separated out different adjustments like UHI but that is no longer available since the introduction of v.3 in2012.

Various paper have purportedly shown little effect for UHI. Jones92 claimed that an addition of 0.0005C to the error bars would be sufficient. Jones08 upped that to 0.005C. Others have claimed that windy and calm nights showed little difference therefore there was no UHI. On the other hand studies of energy use put cities like NY or Tokyo at energy consumption at 100w/m^2. How much of that is converted to waste heat?

mamooth believes UHI doesn't affect the trend. But where does the warming go, if not into the trend.

mamooth then says Flac is wrong unless Arctic UHI trend is higher than elsewhere. IPCC approved papers say there is no UHI trend.

The official story on UHI is hard to swallow. UHI is real but causes no warming. Even if it does cause warming it doesn't change the trend.

Settled science, just ask the consensus.

 

[IanC]

New paper out. Measures five Russian Arctic communities. They found UHI, lots of it.

 

[Muhammed]

Arctic sea ice hits a new low for January.

Liar.

 

[mamooth]

mamooth claims that it has been dealt with in the temperature records.

It's what the science says. You're clearly unfamiliar with the science, given you tried to claim UHI wasn't accounted for in the temperature record. As I live to educate, I'll give you a couple starting points to study up on.

Quantifying the effect of urbanization on U.S. Historical Climatology Network temperature records
Hausfather et al (2013)
Quantifying the effect of urbanization on U.S. Historical Climatology Network temperature records - Hausfather - 2013 - Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres - Wiley Online Library

GLOBAL SURFACE TEMPERATURE CHANGE
Hansen et al (2010)
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2010/2010_Hansen_etal_1.pdf

Barrow Alaska has a measured UHI of ~2C.

Inside the city. The station is 5 miles outside, so it experiences a much smaller UHI.

But wait, there's more. Given you've made Barrow the poster child for your conspiracy, it's worth it to address it further. The study all the deniers quote to get their UHI number is this one, which measured the UHI effect inside of Barrow.

THE URBAN HEAT ISLAND IN WINTER AT BARROW, ALASKA
The urban heat island in winter at Barrow, Alaska - Hinkel - 2003 - International Journal of Climatology - Wiley Online Library
---
The seven coldest sites (also contiguous) are located in the south central region of the study area, away from the effects of the ocean and urbanized area. The average temperature was −25.3°C, or about 2.2°C colder than the urban sites. The average air temperature normal (1971 – 2000), as measured at the NWS Service site in Barrow, is −25.3°C for this 4 month period. The winter of 2002, therefore, appears to have been a typical thermal year.
---

That is, the adjusted results for the "official" NWS Barrow station were exactly the same as the rural temperatures around Barrow, as measured specially by that study. Congratulations, the study showed the Barrow UHI effect was 100% compensated for. Hence, your Barrow conspiracy theory crashes hard.

Others have claimed that windy and calm nights showed little difference therefore there was no UHI.

No, nobody ever said that. Parker 2010 was speaking of UHI trends, not UHI. Again, you have trouble with trend vs. absolute. You should have understood that no scientist would have declared there was no UHI. Alas, you were too emotionally invested in your "Those scientists don't know 'nuffin!" conspiracy.

The official story on UHI is hard to swallow.

Your fantasy about "the official story" is certainly hard to swallow, but as it's only your strawman, nobody in the science cares.

 

[jc456]

Arctic sea ice hits a new low for January.

Liar.

yeah ice has been melting under 32 degrees f. funny shit.

 

[jc456]

mamooth claims that it has been dealt with in the temperature records.

It's what the science says. You're clearly unfamiliar with the science, given you tried to claim UHI wasn't accounted for in the temperature record. As I live to educate, I'll give you a couple starting points to study up on.

Quantifying the effect of urbanization on U.S. Historical Climatology Network temperature records
Hausfather et al (2013)
Quantifying the effect of urbanization on U.S. Historical Climatology Network temperature records - Hausfather - 2013 - Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres - Wiley Online Library

GLOBAL SURFACE TEMPERATURE CHANGE
Hansen et al (2010)
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2010/2010_Hansen_etal_1.pdf

Barrow Alaska has a measured UHI of ~2C.

Inside the city. The station is 5 miles outside, so it experiences a much smaller UHI.

But wait, there's more. Given you've made Barrow the poster child for your conspiracy, it's worth it to address it further. The study all the deniers quote to get their UHI number is this one, which measured the UHI effect inside of Barrow.

THE URBAN HEAT ISLAND IN WINTER AT BARROW, ALASKA
The urban heat island in winter at Barrow, Alaska - Hinkel - 2003 - International Journal of Climatology - Wiley Online Library
---
The seven coldest sites (also contiguous) are located in the south central region of the study area, away from the effects of the ocean and urbanized area. The average temperature was −25.3°C, or about 2.2°C colder than the urban sites. The average air temperature normal (1971 – 2000), as measured at the NWS Service site in Barrow, is −25.3°C for this 4 month period. The winter of 2002, therefore, appears to have been a typical thermal year.
---

That is, the adjusted results for the "official" NWS Barrow station were exactly the same as the rural temperatures around Barrow, as measured specially by that study. Congratulations, the study showed the Barrow UHI effect was 100% compensated for. Hence, your Barrow conspiracy theory crashes hard.

Others have claimed that windy and calm nights showed little difference therefore there was no UHI.

No, nobody ever said that. Parker 2010 was speaking of UHI trends, not UHI. Again, you have trouble with trend vs. absolute. You should have understood that no scientist would have declared there was no UHI. Alas, you were too emotionally invested in your "Those scientists don't know 'nuffin!" conspiracy.

The official story on UHI is hard to swallow.

Your fantasy about "the official story" is certainly hard to swallow, but as it's only your strawman, nobody in the science cares.

tooth, are you saying they adjusted the NWS station warmer? Huh, that is wrong bubba/ bubbiest!!

That is, the adjusted results for the "official" NWS Barrow station were exactly the same as the rural temperatures around Barrow, as measured specially by that study. Congratulations, the study showed the Barrow UHI effect was 100% compensated for. Hence, your Barrow conspiracy theory crashes hard.