Official temp gauge was moved from urban area to out by the airport, which is, of course, a more open area. How many other US cities moved their 'official' temp instruments?

Always struck me as a dirty trick, as I stood on a busy intersection waiting for my bus.

Now we need to find out, and publicize when officials in DOD and Navy started planning to move installations to slightly higher ground in preparation for the sea level rise they knew was coming.

TPTB knew if they could just keep more of the voting public in the dark a bit longer, they could drown out the scientists and pols trying to get us to put the breaks on the warming.

Thank fossil fuel stockholders for letting it get this far this fast. Oh, and thank 3 of the current justices on the SCOTUS for their work stopping the FL recount in 2000.

Otherwise there's bad data informing climate science.

Report by location differently. But when you compare average temperatures over time and find extreme increases just in cities, that's not "climate change." That's microclimate change--important locally but not globally.

Locally (Houston) they give official temps at the large airport in a not too-built-up are N of Houston and local temps at the broadcast studio.

TPTB have tinkered with the reporting going back to the mid 90s in Tucson and who knows how many other cities.

How long has official temp been reported from the Houston airport area? Where was it reported from before? Perhaps a more urban location?

I FULLY understand why they moved the 'official' reporting station out of urban Tucson and out into open area. It dropped the temp report and therefore, corrupted the data SINCE THE 90s. Cities create heat and official reporting tries to tinker. It's done on purpose.

They had stations with hundred-year records of water quality which were defunded, thus losing the uninterrupted data record. Even if the stations were restored, there would be a gap in the record. This matters when discussing minima, maxima and means of things like water temperature, chemistry, and river stage. That gap could contain an extreme record, but is now unknown.

The airport is a bunch of concrete and asphalt, so you'll still get the heat island effect out there. And from what I remember from when I worked out by there it was still roasting during the summers.

Here's a current view of all the temperature stations in the Tucson area, the airport isn't really much different from the rest.
http://www.wrh.noaa.gov/map/?&zoom=12&scroll_zoom=false&center=32.160645595496945,-110.99761962890626&boundaries=false,false,false,false,false,false,false,false,false,false,false&tab=layers&obs=true&obs_type=weather&elements=temp,wind,gust&temp_filter=-80,130&gust_filter=0,150&rh_filter=0,100&elev_filter=-300,14000&precip_filter=0.01,30&obs_popup=false&obs_density=60&obs_provider=ALL]

does not make the case. It would take regression analysis of hundreds of data points over years to show whether there is "much of a difference". Best would be to maintain the data record at the same point, under the same conditions.

This is why we use peer review.

Moving a weather station *can* make a huge difference, but blaming this on malicious intent is not very realistic. Unfortunately the means to control the narrative is much more simple - the parties aiming to discount AGW just lie, and when the data contradicts their lies they lie some more. The people who want to believe them will never check the data themselves, so why would anyone bother changing something like the location of a weather station when it's so much simpler to lie and lie and lie?

by the right to dismiss climate change, arguing that the records show an increase only in urban environments, thus a "micro-climate" rather than global change. This is false. All indicators show a global increase in heat, with models frequently being shown to be too conservative in predictions of the rate of change. They use this heat island argument to justify the relocation of official temperature sensors away from urban centers. This pollutes the data record.

For the consistency you cite, temperature sensors should remain in their historic locations and be installed, calibrated and maintained the same.

This article shows the disproportionate impact of global heating on population centers, especially on the poor and non-white. The greater rise in urban temperatures is an early indicator of global conditions due to the greater sensitivity of the built environment. An early indicator as opposed to just an outlier.

from their airports.

is that airports are weather-critical sites. Wind and precip gauges get located there too. NWS spent considerable money working on airport-specific forecasts, which I think is a case of regulatory capture: the private airlines should have the responsibility, not the taxpayer. On the other hand, if NWS does it, it becomes part of the official record.

That said, for reasons of historical consistency and continuous record, the old temp site should be maintained.

Affluent communities always have the funds available either through a higher tax base or greater influence over agencies, or both.