On Fri, 11 Apr 2008 12:37:26 -0700, Bill Ward
wrote:

On Thu, 10 Apr 2008 23:40:51 -0600, 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?

Take a look at this blog:

http://www.climateaudit.org/?cat=50

That link will take you into a section discussing the surface temperature
record. It takes a little digging to understand the issues, but if you
will follow along for a while, I think it will pay off. There's a lot
more interesting stuff also available on the site.

MacIntyre, the moderator, is one of the people who debunked Mann and the
"Hockey Stick", and many of the contributors are quite well qualified in
their fields. If you actually want to understand "the science", this is
one of the best areas to watch. As an example, they link to
"RealClimate.org", the true believer blog, while AFAIK, RC won't link to
them. I take that as an indication of open-mindedness.

It's worth taking a look. Let us know what you think.




I think this is too complicated for a non-scientist to figure
out.....unless I want to pull out my old science books and re-learn
science which I don't particularly want to do right now and would take
a few years anyway.

As for the MacIntyre/Mann controversy, it looks to me like MacIntyre
found some very legitimate discrepencies in Mann's "Hockey Stick"
analysis but that the result of the correction wasn't particularly
significant. As far as I can tell, they seem to be about equal in
stature.

As for "open mindedness": I don't know what that has to do with
science. I have pagan friends who object to the Christian lack of
open mindedness but science is about fact, not opinion.