• TCO

    It’s a start. But still rather defensive of your fundamental CONFUSION of an effect versus the impact of that effect over time in the aggregate. No one is debating the existence of a large UHI in Phoenix. It’s juvinile to argue on the topic of the latter by showing that it is large now, without doing math and showing effects over time and all that, because, the CURRENT LARGE UHI in Phoenix is not debated! Cripes, man.

  • Tony Edwards

    TCO. Other than being excessively abrasive, and a little lacking in spelling in your juvinile (sic) comments, would you be so kind as to show the rest of us where this large UHI effect has been accounted for in the official records?

  • Larry Sheldon

    Tony Edwards: I have what I think is a more productive idea.

    I think Steve should just simply ban “TCO”.

    No, that would not be “censoring”. That would be “noise filtering”.

  • TCO

    The Phoenix UHI documentation was already cited 7 days ago (comment number 4 on this thread: http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2008/02/a-junior-high-s.html#comments

    Sorry for the abrasiveness.

  • Posted this comment on the other thread and figured I should repost it here:

    Very nice, but the warminsta nutjobs are correct that existance of UHI isn’t an issue, it’s how it changes over time that matters. The IPCC says it doesn’t significantly change over time, however any reasonable person knows that both the extent and intensity of UHI should increase over time as both the number of sites and regions affected increase and the intensity of human activity increases over time.

    [sorry for the abrasiveness]

  • Larry Sheldon

    Geewhiz, some people can’t get anything right.

    I just noticed that I spelled “Warren” S-T-E-V-E.

    How rude.

  • TCO

    Steve has banned me before. Warren is getting some real libertarian street cred by allowing me to run amok. Trampling the gentle flowers.