I don't trust them any more.
There is a saying about justice that it must not only be done but it must be seen to be done. The same idea must apply to the temperature measurements used to calculate the global average. The scientists may be doing exactly the right things for all I know. However, when several examples of counter-intuitive adjustments are discovered and no sound reason is offered then you do become suspicious.
If the temperature record is flat over a number of years, it only takes one measurement to have its historic temperatures lowered and you have a global warming situation with "hottest year evers" being declared. We don't just have one instance of this but many.
Intuitively, you should cool temperatures to compensate for UHI effects. Yes, I know using anomalies makes a difference. But as the UHI effect at a location grows it must show an increasing trend and as I said before, you only need one.
As an ex-instrumentation engineer, I don't get a warm feeling (pun intended) about any of it. Suppose we needed to reduce the stress in a component and we did a test that found stresses of 100MPa then tested a modified component and found stresses of 75MPa. We could have concluded that the modified component was an improvement but we would have been laughed out of the room if we then said that we fitted the straingauge in a different location or orientation.
Still, as engineers we were working on machines that had public safety implications. As a scientist, all you need to do is add a footnote to the caption of the figure in one of the appendices that suggests that the results may not be directly comparable and you are covered. If it turned out that the second component was better you could claim it was consistent with your test. If it proved to be worse you could point to the caveat in the small print.
Anthony Watts coordinated volunteer study to find poorly sited weather stations. Of course many Kool-Aide drinkers don't read past "Anthony Watts." Suffice it to say, he found a lot which did not meet the standards.
It's not just San Diego data which has seen tampering. Dr. Hansen found it necessary in 2000 to tamper with the entire U.S. temperature chart for the 20th century. Still not satisfied, he tampered with Iceland's data as well. I guess there was a "broad consensus among climate scientists" that all these historical records had to be "fixed" so that the previous decade was the warmest on record.
I trust the "adjusted" record about as much as I trust Pegminer's anecdotal temperature record. With adjustments like that, I can see how this year is California's warmest year. Common sense and statistics tells us that adjustments should be equal between lowering and raising the temperature record but we don't get that. We only get them adjusted to exaggerate the warming. It is interesting that the set of people who are skeptical of all the adjustments going one way are also the ones skeptical of significant AGW and alarmists aren't skeptical of anything except of things that don't help their cause.
The effects of site selection has been analyzed by independent researchers and found that site selection does not lead to over-reporting of warming trends.
Mene et al (2009) found that poor sites UNDER reported warming trends. http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ushcn...
Anthony Watts and Roger Pielke Jr (2011) found that site selection did not effect warming trends on average. (Poor sites over-reported minimum temperature trends and under-reported maximum temperature trends.)
http://pielkeclimatesci.files.wordpress....
There are a lot of ignorant ranters who don't know what they are talking about. At least Richard Muller and Anthony Watts, two who ranted most about temperature sites, actually got in and analyzed them and found that there is no bias.
Look for the real analyses. Ignore the ignorant ranters.
Seriously? These people question the reality of so-called "global warming" so they need to be discredited to the fullest extent allowed by law, and then just a little more. Questioning so-called "global warming" should be a crime and those that spread these lies against the profits should be thrown in jail and be lashed 1000 times in accordance to Algore's book "Incomplete truth"
In terms of raw temperature (no homogenization), 2014 was the warmest year on record in San Diego, by far. A lot of that was due to the the warmth of the ocean, for which, by the way, there is NO urban heat island effect. I played volleyball on the beach today and the heat started to get to us after a few games.
At Scripps Pier the ocean temperature is currently 62.6 F, VERY warm for January. When I was in high school it was sometimes colder than that during the summer.
It was interesting that it was the busiest single runway airport in the country, and second busiest in the world. I guess technically there's runway 9 (east) and 27 (west), although 9 is rarely used. I do remember one morning taking off in the fog on 9 while all the other planes were landing on 27, that was a bit odd.
I'm sure some of them have integrity and know what they are talking about. Others may not.
Of course you cannot.
"This is secret information that people don't know about"
when whatever they're talking about has been in the news for decades?
Shirley you jest.
Okay, okay, I'll stop calling you Shirley. ;)
notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com ?
Of course not!
https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2015/01/15/uhi-what-uhi-say-giss/
