[DustyMoment]

the 0.36 F figure is for the surface, and the satellites measure the temperature of the lower troposphere (and also the middle, troposphere+mesosphere, and also the stratosphere).

I would ask the question how much of that 0.36 F figure takes into account the "heat island" effect from the massive metropolitan areas represented by the likes of major cities such as LA, Houston, Chicago, NY, Tokyo, the Dallas-Ft.Worth area, etc.? These massive urban developments are known to retain heat longer and have affected weather patterns as a result of that factor.

I watched a snowstorm advancing on Ft. Worth a few years ago and expected that we would be hit by a rare snowstorm. However, as the storm approached the outskirts of the Dallas-Ft. Worth metropolitan area, the heat island affect caused the storm to literally split and bypass the area. Later, I received a call from my sister in San Antonio (which got 3 inches from this storm) asking how much snow we received. She was astonished when I told her it went around us.

[cogitator]

I would ask the question how much of that 0.36 F figure takes into account the "heat island" effect from the massive metropolitan areas represented by the likes of major cities such as LA, Houston, Chicago, NY, Tokyo, the Dallas-Ft.Worth area, etc.?

Certainly a regional effect; not much of a global effect.

The Surface Temperature Record and the Urban Heat Island

Pithy excerpt:

"... there is little difference between the long-term (1880 to 1998) rural (0.70°C/century) and full set of station temperature trends (actually less at 0.65°C/century)."

If the effect of cities was substantial, the full set including city stations would be expected to be pulled upward by urban heat islands and be higher than the trend in the rural station set.