On Apr 11, 7:40 am, Annabel Lee
wrote:
On Wed, 09 Apr 2008 16:51:13 -0700, Bill Ward



wrote:
On Wed, 09 Apr 2008 13:12:25 -0700, Roger Coppock wrote:

On Apr 9, 8:34 am, Bill Ward wrote:
On Wed, 09 Apr 2008 07:04:24 -0700, matt_sykes wrote:
On 9 Apr, 10:24, Roger Coppock wrote:
On Apr 8, 8:01 pm, Poetic Justice -n-

Dog.com wrote:
Roger Coppock wrote:
March ties for 3rd warmest on NASA's 129-year record.

Why is NASA the official keeper of the temperature?

NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies offers data, as do several
other organizations. I use NASA's data because GISS corrects for
UHI using nighttime earth shine, artificial lighting, measured from
satellites. IMHO, this method is better than using census data to
locate urban areas.

That is a feeble way to adjust for UHI.

The ONLY way to adjust for UHI is to put a station in a rural area
near to the urban station to act as a control (being a sicnetist you
wold know this of course).

Mind you, one you have done that you might as well ignore the urban
station data since rural data is true surface temp.

And what happens when you do that? You get no warming trend. RURAL
STATIONS ACROSS THE GLOBE SHOW NO OVERALL TEMPERATURE TREND.

Roger can't comprehend that bad data is worse than no data. Unless
you're trying to scare people, of course.

If you have better data, or a method for UHI correction, you are more than
welcome to present them here. Until then the data presented above are a
better indication of reality than your fantasies.

Fantasies aren't science, whether they're mine or NASA's. That's
the problem with trying to "correct" bad data. If it's bad, it can't be
used - it's a fantasy based on invalid assumptions. Averaging bad
data with with good data hides the problem, but doesn't fix it.

Since I'm not a scientist, I wouldn't know the best way to determine
temperatures but I've always believed that NASA is a pretty reliable
scientific organization. Can you point out any peer reviewed articles
that would lead me to believe that their data can't be trusted?

If NASA's data is bad, is there another organization that has better
data? Or is it all bad?

The problem with constructing a global temperature is that sampling
biases will occur even when researchers are aware of the possibility.
Another poster replying to you has offered you a chance to examine the
ultimate abuse of sampling - cherry picking. It involves taking a
subset of the data set that only reflects what you want to believe -
in this case all the weather stations showing big temperature raises
were eliminated from the set.