[LINK] In Retirement on this thread - Was - The meaning of

[TKoltai]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: link-bounces at mailman.anu.edu.au 
> [mailto:link-bounces at mailman.anu.edu.au] On Behalf Of Richard Chirgwin
> Sent: Friday, 29 June 2012 4:14 PM
> To: link at mailman.anu.edu.au
> Subject: Re: [LINK] In Retirement on this thread - Was - The 
> meaning of
> 
> 
> Tom,
> 
> [snip]
> > But Climate Scientists don't differentiate between rural or urban - 
> > they merely aggregate all the temperatures and say "there's 
> the global 
> > aggregate temperature.
> >
> > Basically, the reason for my disdain for the entire Climate Change 
> > data model is based on the UHI [urban heat island] effect 
> correlation 
> > with pop growth, it's not a science it's a statistician's 
> worst night 
> > mare...
> Incorrect. The BOM has published papers discussing the 
> quantum of urban 
> heat islands, and discussing the relationship between population and 
> localised temperatures. I doubt that someone who's smart 
> enough to say 
> "x degrees per y million people" is too stupid to apply that 
> to their data.
> 
> Here's the BOM data: 
> http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/change/acorn-sat/#tabs=1
> 

Sorry Richard 

Two part answer:

Part One:
The newly massaged BOM data is no longer in my opinion a reliable data
set.
The "smoothed" data was picked over by a number of persons with
qualifications in the area and I must defer to their knowledge... 

A reliable dataset would be the copies of data held by persons outside
of Government influence, and that data differs to the BOM data,
significantly enough to be eye raising.

Part Two...

Before the data was massaged we had global warming theory but no
discernible evidence showing an increase in temperatures from 1907 till
2009.


TomK