And again, I did not read it that way, and he has claimed that isn't what he meant.
Now I have suggested that the heat skews the meteorological station readings, and I recall him agreeing with me on that.
At best, there is miscommunication here. However, since you never let go of an argument you think makes us look bad, you just don't know when to stop. Thing is, you are making yourself look bad. Not us. You really should look at reality.
He said: "That is more of an effect than I would have thought," stating the paper indicated the UHI effect was greater than he thought before. When he said this: "0.8°C/decade would cover the observed warming attributed to added CO2 several times over," he never indicated any region or the planet, so it should be assumed he was talking about San Antonio. His statement would be correct because CO2 from 1997 to 2010 would add a very small amount of warming. Somewhere around 0.86 degree, if I give it an added 300% positive feedback. 13 years of UHI at 0.8 per decade is 1.04 degrees.
His statement clearly indicates to me that he claimed the UHI for San Antonio was greater than the warming by CO2 for the same period.
Both of you, look at the thread title. No one cares about your feud, so take that somewhere more appropriate. In this thread, if you two deviate even the tiniest bit from the topic again, you will be removed from the thread.
