> Intuitively, it seems like the reporting weather stations would not be uniformly distributed geographically, but would rather show a higher concentration near urban areas
Why would this be intuitive at all?
First, if you play the animation and look at the dots on the map and have a basic understanding of how the US population is distributed, I just can't see how you would draw your conclusion. The dots are pretty evenly distributed geographically.
But even without the visualization, why would you assume there were more reporting stations in urban areas? Why would people be inclined to waste time and money supporting a new reporting station if there is already one close by?
Finally, the "urban heat islands are skewing the data and climate change is not real" argument has been debunked so thoroughly that it is hard to believe anyone who brings it up brings it up in good faith. Especially when it is phrased as an "innocuous question" which could have been answered with 30 seconds and your favorite search engine.
Why would this be intuitive at all?
First, if you play the animation and look at the dots on the map and have a basic understanding of how the US population is distributed, I just can't see how you would draw your conclusion. The dots are pretty evenly distributed geographically.
But even without the visualization, why would you assume there were more reporting stations in urban areas? Why would people be inclined to waste time and money supporting a new reporting station if there is already one close by?
Finally, the "urban heat islands are skewing the data and climate change is not real" argument has been debunked so thoroughly that it is hard to believe anyone who brings it up brings it up in good faith. Especially when it is phrased as an "innocuous question" which could have been answered with 30 seconds and your favorite search engine.