We have had many climate discussions. The Urban Heat Island effect (UHI) is enormous if not taken account of. Most of the observation stations in the US are placed in such a way as to magnify the heatng effect by being at airports for the cities. Here are the Texas results of population growth and heat trends.
> > > > 
> > > > http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/06/28/the-uhis-of-texas-are-upon-you/#more-66378&#1... > > 
> > > The Urban Heat Island idea was debunked in 2010.
> > > 
> > > http://www.desmogblog.com/urban-heat-island-myth-dead/
> > > 
> > > According to the paper referenced there, there was a bias, but counterintuitively, to those NOT located in "heat islands." They reported warmer temps than the ones in the cities.
> > 
> > The UHI involves reported rises in temp over a century of USA analysis using city monitors. Don't trust IPCC reports. Trophospheric temps are as reported, but much of the data in the US is those surface station reports, going back to the 1860's, and that is apples and oranges. The satellites have not shown global warming. That is part of the discussion from those folks who don't think the temperature change is much of a problem. At night where I live 60 miles out of Houston we are cooler than the city reports.
> 
> If you read the paper reference in the link in question, it was not an IPCC study. It was from the NOAA.
> 
> Linked here. -The Ipcc report was cited in the article. Also you miss the point of the Texas study which is obvious. Cities as they grow create heat islands which can skew data unless accounted for. That my only point. Read some of Fred Singer's stuff.