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”:
And they call this science?
August 4th, 2007 at 11:06 am
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
August 6th, 2007 at 9:34 am
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.
August 6th, 2007 at 12:58 pm
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