Search:
powered by
Orange Punch ~ Opinion blog maintained by editorial writers Alan Bock, Mark Landsbaum and Steven Greenhut

Global warming “measurements.” Might as well use a dart board.

August 3rd, 2007, 5:32 pm · 3 Comments · posted by Mark Landsbaum

From Mark Landsbaum

There are four basic methods used to measure global temperatures in real time. Two measure surface temperatures, one measures with weather balloons and a fourth uses satellite data. One of the ground measurements boldly announced that 2006 was the warmest year on record. Oops. None of the others agreed.

Such is the precision of global warming measurements. And we’re not even talking about the goofy computer “models” tweaked and tweaked until they spew out what’s sought: evidence of manmade global warming catastrophe.  

Another thing about that warmest temperature on record claim. “On record” is the key phrase. Temperature measurements with thermometers have been taken only for about a century and a half, and of course not even close to being done uniformly across the globe, which is after all what the global warming alarmists are claiming to represent. So, it’s instructive to recognize the nature of the measurement stations used to log temperatures at ground level. Many of the measuring stations once were located in cool green undeveloped grassy glens. Alas, increasingly asphalt (which absorbs heat from the sun), concrete (which reflect heat), steel and stucco (ditto) have encroached on these pristine venues.

Those who have bothered to check them out find that surprise, surprise, temperatures have increased at the stations that become surrounded by heat-absorbing, heat-reflecting stuff.

Here’s a photo of a measuring station used to “prove” we’re at risk from global warming”:

compromising elements
 

And they call this science?

Share and Enjoy: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
  • Digg
  • Sphinn
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Mixx
  • Google

3 Responses to “Global warming “measurements.” Might as well use a dart board.”

  1. Danney Ball Says:

    The real problem is computers.
    They are responsible for all of this
    google warming! Nice article … let’s
    send a copy to Al Gorinski … db

  2. Keith Wood Says:

    While your point about badly-placed weather stations is correct, your
    interpretation of the example pic isn’t.

    That was shot at Derby Field (KLOL), near Lovelock, NV. The MiG fighter
    in the pic is a nonoperational display which has been there since 1995,
    so even if the tailpipe were pointed right at the box, it wouldn’t matter.

    See http://nevadarancher.com/rminer/rm2003/rmjan09b.htm for more info
    about the plane.

    The nearest aircraft parking is on the concrete ramp, over 80 feet from
    the temp box, and the air conditioners are 50 feet away. The field is
    unsuitable for large aircraft (5000 foot runways), so there isn’t a lot
    of heat from them to affect the box. You can see these things on Google
    Earth.

    That said, the reason that your point about this box is RIGHT is that
    the box is surrounded by dark rock and gravel, which means that the temp
    readings will swing radically during the day, be higher later into the
    evening, and then be much lower during the winter snow season. In
    addition, the white sidewalk reflects sunlight right through the box
    louvers at certain times of day, baking the equipment inside.

    Please correct your site. We can leave the errors to the opposition.

  3. mlandsbaum Says:

    Fair enough Mr. Woods. I stand corrected. But you are right. The temperature readings at this site are dramatically skewed by the conditions there - even if that jet’s never revved up, which is something the folks who read the measuring devices don’t seem to care about.

    At your service in Christ . . .

    Mark Landsbaum

ADVERTISEMENT