2aguy
Diamond Member
- Jul 19, 2014
- 111,977
- 52,257
- 2,290
A paper has been released confirming that temperature recording units, meant to monitor temperature around the globe, don't you know.........are being distorted by the stupid locations they now inhabit...... where they were once in isolated area, they are now surrounded by heat trapping urban sprawl...distorting the temperature readings.......
This is how stupid the cultists in the man made global warming religion have become...
https://www.americanthinker.com/blo...artificially_boosted_global_warming_data.html
Anthony Watts of Watts Up With That reports on an important scientific papersponsored by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (the official keepers of temperature records) that confirms what Watts and other critics have maintained for years. To its credit, NOAA decided in 2012 to test Watts’s critique that a substantial portion of the surface air temperature monitoring stations that are used to generate data for claims of global warming are located in places that have become surrounded by urbanization in the form of asphalt and concrete surfaces and other facilities that absorb heat during the day and discharge it at night -- thereby artificially raising the average air temperatures.
Here is one example Watts provides of a ridiculously-sited air temperature monitoring station:
USHCN weather station in a parking lot. University of Arizona, Tucson
As a scientist, Watts uses the scientific and technical terminology but explains it. For example:
--------
Lo and behold, the scientific paper promised in 2012 has been published and it confirms the critique. The language is technical, but the results make common sense and confirm that claims of global warming have been inflated:
Abstract (bold mine)
A field experiment was performed in Oak Ridge, TN, with four instrumented towers placed over grass at increasing distances (4, 30, 50, 124, and 300 m) from a built-up area. Stations were aligned in such a way to simulate the impact of small-scale encroachment on temperature observations. As expected, temperature observations were warmest for the site closest to the built environment with an average temperature difference of 0.31 and 0.24 °C for aspirated and unaspirated sensors respectively. Mean aspirated temperature differences were greater during the evening (0.47 °C) than day (0.16 °C)
This is how stupid the cultists in the man made global warming religion have become...
https://www.americanthinker.com/blo...artificially_boosted_global_warming_data.html
Anthony Watts of Watts Up With That reports on an important scientific papersponsored by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (the official keepers of temperature records) that confirms what Watts and other critics have maintained for years. To its credit, NOAA decided in 2012 to test Watts’s critique that a substantial portion of the surface air temperature monitoring stations that are used to generate data for claims of global warming are located in places that have become surrounded by urbanization in the form of asphalt and concrete surfaces and other facilities that absorb heat during the day and discharge it at night -- thereby artificially raising the average air temperatures.
Here is one example Watts provides of a ridiculously-sited air temperature monitoring station:
USHCN weather station in a parking lot. University of Arizona, Tucson
As a scientist, Watts uses the scientific and technical terminology but explains it. For example:
--------
Lo and behold, the scientific paper promised in 2012 has been published and it confirms the critique. The language is technical, but the results make common sense and confirm that claims of global warming have been inflated:
Abstract (bold mine)
A field experiment was performed in Oak Ridge, TN, with four instrumented towers placed over grass at increasing distances (4, 30, 50, 124, and 300 m) from a built-up area. Stations were aligned in such a way to simulate the impact of small-scale encroachment on temperature observations. As expected, temperature observations were warmest for the site closest to the built environment with an average temperature difference of 0.31 and 0.24 °C for aspirated and unaspirated sensors respectively. Mean aspirated temperature differences were greater during the evening (0.47 °C) than day (0.16 °C)
