Not replace it but correct for it. If the rural stations run an average of 2 degrees cooler than the urban one, then you adjust down the urban station by 2 degrees.
It’s an oversimplification, by you get the idea.
Is “reasonable” your criterion for “scientific”. The heat island is relevant. It may increase the net global temp estimate but so be it.
Validation is not just “reasonable”.
You kinda proved my point…
I want to see what the standard is for the type of equipment used to determine the temperature that is used in the temperature data sets.
Anyone know what that standard is? Glass thermometers? Infrared radiometers? Thermistors? Etc.
I ask because I want to know why GISS says new equipment installations tend to produce lower temperatures and those lower reported measurements then produce a non-climatic discontinuity in the data that needs to be “adjusted”.
This is on one of the GISS references.
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1029/2009JD013094
Moreover, the sign of the bias is counterintuitive to photographic documentation of poor exposure because associated instrument changes have led to an artificial negative (“cool”) bias in maximum temperatures and only a slight positive (“warm”) bias in minimum temperatures. These results underscore the need to consider all changes in observation practice when determining the impacts of siting irregularities. Further, the influence of nonstandard siting on temperature trends can only be quantified through an analysis of the data. Adjustments applied to USHCN Version 2 data largely account for the impact of instrument and siting changes, although a small overall residual negative (“cool”) bias appears to remain in the adjusted maximum temperature series.
I only have the abstract though. Maybe the full article has the information. How did the researchers conclude the new instruments provided less accurate measurements ? Again… they applied an “adjustment” but I have yet to read where they validated the methods they used to make that “adjustment”. Practitioners of science would seek to obtain an exact answer and the theory behind using a measurement of Temp=T but the reporting of a Temp =T+delta. Engineers would at least validate that the adjustment was good enough for the intended purpose under all conditions that are applicable. What is the criteria that these so-called climate “scientists” (researchers, authors, and note the meaning of “peer” when extolling the virtues of the peer review process) are using to justify the “adjustments”. I’m skeptical but open to hearing how they validated their “adjustment” method.
Well, we work in the real world and are forced, constantly, to make these sorts of concessions. The question is whether the concession is reasonable. Whether it would incorrectly effect the results.
I have no problem with how they handled heat islands. They also did a study to determine the effect of heat islands on the average global temperature and found them to be negligible which diminishes the concern here, right?
They use RTDs since the 80s. The cooling trend you’re referring to is one in a subset of temperature probes that underwent environment changes, ie adding a parking lot next to it, which a website called surface stations dot org was criticizing for falsely driving up the temperature record. So they took a subset of the “poorly situated” stations and compared to the overall trend and the poorly situated ones have a tiny bit cooler temps. It doesn’t have anything to do with the instrumentation.
So … pay no attention to the words "because associated instrument changes have led to an artificial negative (“cool”) bias " that I highlighted in the excerpt of the publication I included above.
I’m done, friends.
Why not honor me with a good ole "so you got nothin " response to end my contributions here?
Unlike you, I read the publication in question.
Just thought you’d like to know.
This sentence may or may not refer to actual changes in measurement instruments.
Probable, yes. 15 years ago we didn’t even know these objects existed. And as the link I posted shows, a highly elliptical orbit for these distant planetoids would not be abnormal.
And you have no idea what so ever what occurred in near space during that time, yet you dismiss the concept because you don’t know. Circular illogic.
I posted the link. WR posted more links. You are grasping at straws.
But it’s distance from Earth will not be the same.
Those are the only two of the recently discovered objects whose orbits have been calculated. Several of the “new” planetoids are so far away that their relative speed (as observed from Earth) is so slow that their orbit is unknown. But the fact that they appear to move so slowly indicates that they are most likely on an elliptical orbit. And the fact that these objects were just recently discovered leaves the door open to the probability that more will be discovered. You are dismissing a hypothesis based on what you don’t know. That is unscientific.
An therein lies the problem. After 30 or 40 years of the sky is falling hysteria, the general public is not interested. There is no sign that they will become interested any time soon. But that should not prevent anyone from acting. Why does filthy rich Hollywood rely on fossil fuels rather than converting to solar? They ain’t got no alibi. They could do it. But they won’t.
Yeah, that’s not true. Clever people have clever ways of figuring out what happened in the past. The last few million years are not marked by an extremely high number of debris.
You keep suggesting hypotheses which have no connection with what is known.
Which link? The NY Times link doesn’t make the claim. None of WR have backed this up. If I missed it, I’m sorry, but could you please point me to it?
Name the planetoids that are speculated to have orbits into the inner planets please.
Okay. Yes. Relevance?
The planetoid would certainly have to have an eccentricity higher than any we have ever observed for any planet/oids in our system.
It’s August. 
