| numberwang said: The main problem with the "adjustments" is that it creates a hockey stick temp graph based solely on adjustments, not data. For some reason all temp adjustments are a one way ticket, always cooling the past to increase the "rising trend". What about the opposite, the urban heat effect? Many historic temp stations in urban areas will have an artificial increase by 1-3°F because of growing cities. The annual mean air temperature of a city with 1 million people or more can be 1.8–5.4°F (1–3°C) warmer than its surroundings. In the evening, the difference can be as high as 22°F (12°C). |
Why isn't that valid though? The only reason you seem to be providing is that the adjustments are not valid because they produce results that you do not like. You aren't providing sources stating that the urban heat island effect isn't being accounted for adequately in adjustments.
In actuality, the presence of urban heat islands is one of the reasons why temperatures are often adjusted upwards. Over time, temperature measuring stations have seen a trend of being located in cities, to moving outside of cities, often to airports which don't see the same extent of the urban heat island effect. Because of this movement, the temperatures of these stations either need to be adjusted up, or the original measurements need to be adjusted down which is the exact thing you are complaining about...
Really, the only thing you are saying is that one of the graphs supports your own personal biases, and as such, it must be right, without actually sourcing or proving those claims.
I will also add a sidenote about the fact that most of your "refutations" seem to be based either on the press (such as your newspaper clippings) or on politicians (such as Gore) instead of actually addressing the science directly. Both the press and politicians are pretty terrible at understanding and explaining climate change, so you aren't really doing much to prove that the science is faulty by relying on these sources.
