Earth's hottest month on record was July 2016: NASA

You earlier asked about North Canada and Siberia (post 170) and now you want to talk about other stations after being shown the evidence you asked for. You are also now complaining about having fewer stations than in the past but that is what you said should happen and your complaining is just as I predicted in post 163 !

 

Are you saying you can accurately state the temperature 1200km from where you are?

 

Where do you get 1200Km from?

 

That is the radius use for extrapolating temperatures in areas without stations in two of the temperature series including GISS.

 

I'm using the US stations as proof that the temperature is not constant for areas of 10,000 square miles.

Please re read my post and focus on understanding my point.

 

Are those areas consisting of flat ice or flat grass land or flat desert over the 100 mile by 100 mile sector and is there just one station in each of those sectors?

 

Are you saying you can accurately state the temperature in Winnipeg from Omaha, NE?

 

640 miles apart ? Obviously no and why would you need to when there are weather stations just a few miles apart all along that route !

 

That is still less than the distance they use to extrapolate (guess) temperatures where no stations exist.

 

Perhaps you could show where these guesses of places 1200km away from a station have been used to conclude that the Earth is warming up

 

The Great Plains are flat.

 

The Great Plains is a huge area and is clearly not flat, so which area of the great plains are you referring to

 

All of it.

 

That could explain why you do not understand Global Warming when you think that a region that is 8000 ft above sea level is at the same altitude as another region that is 600 ft above sea level

 

Where have I claimed that ?? What is the highest mountain peak in Siberia ?? Do you think the Altai Mountains affect surface temperature on either side ??

 

Which has been pointed out repeatedly. The predominate warming we see in NOAA/NASA mapping is all derivative of that kind of statistical data manufacturing data included. Incidentally the smoothed data from non well situated collection stations also still returns a significantly higher temperature than those in well situated locations in the same local regions. The point of the exercise is to always show additional heat.

 

the vast majority of the great plains (in the US and Canada) is under 2500 ft. Your assertion is juvenile. There are very few places in the US that are even above 5K feet. Most of those are mountainous. But just because, we can the temperature in Laramie WY (about 7200 Ft) be 80 and at the same time it can be 80 in Dallas? If we are to listen to your analysis, this could never be given the altitude differences. Seems problematic for you.

 

Is Siberia flat or are you changing the subject away from flat areas?

 

You have made the claim that flat areas can be represented by very few data points. That is clearly bogus.

 

Yes, the 'warmest year' is based on extrapolated data over the Arctic.

 

And you avoided talking about flat areas ! Mountains in Siberia, err, mountains are not flat. All of the places in the great plains. erm, the great plains have places that are over 5000 feet higher than other places in the great plains, ie not flat

 

The claim that temperatures on flat areas of land separated by hundreds of miles are the same is bogus. I live in the central valley of CA which is very flat. Temperatures in Modesto are not the same as temperatures in Redding, Sacramento, Fresno, or Bakersfield.

 

Because "bad" means "not quite as good". They're providing useful data. It's bad science to throw away useful data.

Because it addressed specifically what you asked for. If you don't want evidence, don't ask for it.

It's solid peer-reviewed science. Nobody else could find fault with it. Other than your "it's just about wind!" handwaving, do you have any intelligent criticism of it?

Remember it why? It has nothing to do with the debunking of your claim of no tropospheric hotspot.

 

You can't just keep saying that. You have to _show_ it. You haven't even tried.

For an interesting exercise, remove half the stations. Recalculate. You'll get the same average. Add more stations. Recalculate. You'll get the same average. That shows the station coverage is very good.

That's why it's corrected downwards. Nobody denies UHI exists. It has always been accounted for.

Obviously false, as the "hot" stations show exactly the same trend as the "cold" stations ("hot" and "cold" as defined by the WUWT project).

 

If an urban heat island affects the data in a predictable way (instrument reads high) but not quantifiable way then it must be thrown out. There is no justification for including known bad data. How would like to fly on an airplane designed using homogenized data ??

If you cannot defend it then don't use it. I've never heard of anything which purports to derive temperature from wind data. How can there be criticism ?? Are there any other papers which have come to the same conclusions or have taken their data and duplicated their results ?? Surely some have investigated further since the paper was issued in 2008. Is the data available for anyone to use ??

The hockey stick papers were peer reviewed. Peer review is meaningless.

Here is some commentary on Thorne's work:

https://judithcurry.com/2011/10/29/tropospheric-and-surface-temperatures/