"Roger Coppock" wrote in message
oups.com...
Your estimates on the error in these data
are very exaggerated. If you have better data,
please post it here. Until then I would prefer
to reason from data like these, rather than
ignorance.

No Roger. It's more of a lack of data. I just gave you the facts. One can't
take some readings and accurately apply it globally over 100 year peiod if
they are not all there. Of course you could take the science philosopy that
it's all you have so it is gospel.


These data use "GISS analysis" and were not
corrected with a population-based UHI formula.
This is a fact we have discussed too many times
before, James.


That has never been accurately answered. Modeling used the population method
when some bitched about it. If it has changed to something more realistic,
I'd like to hear it. Not just for the UHI effect but for the rural effect as
well. We discussed at one point about paving having an area about the size
of Ohio. That's for the U.S. only. In my recollection, the subject was
changed by the AGW zealots and dropped.