[mike_hearn]

It was clearly hot last month, but that isn't what anyone is arguing about in this thread. Hot months have happened throughout history. inigyou scoffed at the idea the appearance of long term climate change can be caused by immigration. But they shouldn't have scoffed, because it's one of the primary drivers of data difficulties in climatology. Do you accept this fact?

[notahacker]

Your argument for "the appearance of long term climate change can be caused by immigration" is that an individual high temperature was recorded at an RAF base, ironically one of the places in the country you're least likely to find an immigrant. It was one of a number of places to record a temperature over 40 degrees, compared with the previous high point of 38.7 degrees (including all the airports and RAF bases and urban heat islands). Indeed even if we choose to believe Toby Young's tinfoil hat brigade's claims that it was definitely boosted by a jet engine and not the more standard explanation for minute-to-minute temperature rises of the sun coming out, it was still hotter than any previous day ever recorded anywhere in the UK before that supposed jet engine landing, and I'm pretty sure we've landed jets there in summer before.

Nobody honestly believes that the reason the UK is recording hotter temperatures all over the country is because immigration is driving Typhoons to land differently at RAF Coningsby

[mike_hearn]

You're clearly not arguing in good faith, so I'll just leave it with this:

> and not the more standard explanation for minute-to-minute temperature rises of the sun coming out

It was a cloudless day.

[notahacker]

I mean, it's better faith in the original argument which was a bunch of ludicrous FUD blaming measurement error for climate change, as if thermometers hadn't been located near heat islands and airports for decades and crank blogs had a better idea how to deal with measurement error than meteorologists. The irony is I could actually make a better argument for immigration being a factor in climate change (moving to a more economically developed country really does increase your carbon footprint...) but that would involve actually acknowledging it's an issue and other people cause it too...

If you had an actual answer for what made the temperature higher on that day at that site (and 46 other sites) than it had ever been there or anywhere else (including all the other airports and heat islands) even before aircraft allegedly landed, and what Typhoon operations have to do with immigration anyway, you wouldn't be stuck repeating the unsupported claims of a political blog about the absence of cloud (the Met Office recorded cloud coverage of 1 oktas at 3pm at that site that day, but I guess Chris Morrison who wasn't there and doesn't exactly hide his partisanship is wayyy more reliable than the weather station's lidar)

[card_zero]

I'd be happier if you'd thrown in some concession like "I admit data is sometimes bad quality". That wouldn't mean agreeing with your opponent's implicit denial that any warming is happening. Your side doesn't have to be perfect in order to be in the right, and if you claim infallibility it looks less credible, to me. Is it more important to laugh at this guy, than to be scrupulous?

It may spoil an entertaining deliberate confusion, but you know the airports with the jets, and the cities full of immigrants, were clearly stated as separate from the start: "two sources of corruption ... the first ... the second".

[notahacker]

I haven't claimed infallibility though, I've even explicitly pointed out that if we choose to take the climate sceptic blog's claims that 3 planes landing some distance away from the weather station added 1.3 degrees to the RAF Coningsby temperature seriously it was still the hottest day ever recorded in that place before the planes landed, and in lots of other places too.

Immigrants were explicitly linked to supposed airport-induced measurement error "as population goes up due to immigration...jet travel goes up and this causes more traffic which warms the air at these weather stations" in the original post and doubled down on by these immigrants supposedly being "a primary driver of data difficulties in climatology". I found it amusing that the example posed was a RAF base...

[pasquinelli]

> I'd be happier if you'd thrown in some concession like "I admit data is sometimes bad quality".

"be reasonable, meet them halfway."

[selimthegrim]

Look if you have the inside take on a systematic inaccuracy in weather stations time to follow the underpants gnomes and profit. I am sure you can make a killing in crop insurance futures.

[mike_hearn]

Crop insurers don't pay out based on what governments say the temperature was, they pay out based on verified crop damage. So, unless you can see a smart trading strategy that takes that into account (I'm all ears!) then I'm not sure how to profit based on these problems.

[selimthegrim]

You should tell that to the people in America caught trying to defraud them by sabotaging weather stations, no?

[mike_hearn]

I wasn't sure what this was a reference to. Grok says it's about a case in Kansas in 2016, but:

- They tried to sabotage rain sensors

- The insurer was the federal government

- They were quickly caught

So ... there doesn't seem to be any commercial angle here. Is that what you meant?

[inigyou]

You know what else happened 125 years ago? Less carbon dioxide in the atmosphere