NOAA Temperature Sensors

I know this will probably make some mad at me....thinking I'm being all anti environmental on your %@#, but you've gotta admit that this is really quite funny. I was reading earlier about how the global temps are supposedly going to increase as much as 4C by 2060. My common sense says that is ridiculous, as during the extremely heavy CO2 outpour of the early 20th century reportedly caused a less than a degree celcius rise in temperature.... Of course, no one ever tells you that the little ice age ended in 1850 either.

Still, back to the point. Did you know that the temperature sensors that these scientists are relying on do not meet the standards? Take this one for example. It is a temperature sensor placed on concrete.

Did the idiot that put it there know about ambient heat and the greater heat absorbtion and storing capabilities of concrete? Just read that article, its funny really.

Not to mention, many of these other sensors are placed on rooftops (copius excess heat offenders), near A/C units (the condensers are HOT), and exhaust ports of buildings. I don't know about you but the reliance on such data strikes me as stupid. If I hired a thousand people at these places to set up a heating element next to them, would scientists be panicing about 200 degree temperatures before an inspection revealed the tampering?

Environmental health is one thing, but scaring people into believing that disaster is about to happen is irresponsible and when people find out about it they tend to tune you out. People are less likely to change anything when they feel that someone is manipulating them into doing so.

It just makes me laugh. The next thing is to put one of these under a solar farm. Then when its bloody HOT they'll start planning our exodus from Earth to Mars.

Yeah, it's been noted before, I specifically remember the ones about mounting near the AC.

Queue Carl Sagan talking about the invisible dragon in his garage.

I'm not sure how the invisible dragon applies...

I am simply pointing out a flaw in the data collection process. Removing that flaw will therefore make such data more trustworthy and relevant. But anything that absorbs the sun's heat effectively can throw off a sensor. So as the solar cycle climbs to peak it will show an increase year to year. And as it hits minimum a general decline.

Can it possibly be explained why this year's solar minimum corresponded to lower than average temperatures?

This local reading in early May:


(see the "Current Conditions")

It was closer to +50F at the time. Inaccurate readings like that are common. Is that what gets stored and analysed as climate data?

Ben N1NP

Potentially.

Nearly 90% of Temperature Stations Show Extreme Heat Bias, Study Says

How do we know global warming is a problem if we can’t trust the U.S. temperature record?

It makes for good speeches. Undoubtedly by 2060 when the temperature does not rise by 4C, politicians will claim victory and credit for a natural phenomena. They won't mention any of the real benefits, just the phantom benefits.

In other words, "I can breathe" will be replaced with "My skin is not melting."

"The smog is dissipating" will be ignored and "Our oceans have not boiled away" will be the big claim.

There are real benefits to CO2 emission reduction, but we could quicken the pace by using reliable data, real data, and knock it off with this "If we don't act now, our children will be in grave danger" crap that just creates a tug of war that holds off any type of improvement.

Ignoring all of this though, carbon dioxide is getting WAY too much attention. The biggest combatant of CO2 and dirty air is vegetation. Yet we have no such environmental policy to protect vegetation. Only in certain reserve areas do we care about that because we like to vacation there. Close to home we want 10 shopping malls all with the same stores in them, 10 best buys within 10 miles, etc etc etc. So we level vegetation completely oblivious to the fact that the carbon dioxide topic that we are so fixated on is directly related. Heck look at the cookie cutter neighborhoods going up everywhere. They clear the whole area and plant seedlings of trees not meant to grow but 15 feet tall because they want you to always see the house.

In the end, I'm not saying environmentalism is garbage. I'm saying that their global warming theory is garbage. This years dip in temperature, as well as the little ice age's correlation to lull solar activity, prove that we are more at the mercy of solar dynamics than carbon dioxide. We had better start taking THAT seriously. Because if the sun gets hotter like it did a few thousand years ago, the only thing that can protect us from heat stroke, sunburn, etc is vegetation. Even if we completely mitigate our CO2 and greenhouse gas emissions, without a bloody tree in the park, nobody's gonna want to have a picnic on a hot summer day. However, since we haven't the capacity to think about more than one thing at once, we won't really address this problem until well after the sun enters a high activity period.

As soon as I have my own house I am going to begin taking daily samples of local temperature with my own properly placed sensors, and I'm going to get special filters for my telescope and some equipment to measure the sun's magnitude on a weekly basis. Most people haven't noticed but there has been a direct correlation with the past decade's temperature cycles with the brightness of the sun.

*steps off his soap box*

All of that said, there is nothing wrong with environmental policies aimed at lessening our emissions, and becoming more efficient. However, people would be much more cooperative if the data wasn't biased and purposely manipulated to an end. I think that these sensors should all be put in the most rural area's in this country. Place some near urban areas to correct for a local heat bias due to the urban heat island which is relevant in statistics. I would also do a multi-study in areas by placing one in shade and another in direct sunlight to measure bias created by such sunlight. If data is reliable, then people will be much more ready to trust it.

And the fear that such data will take attention off the topic would show that reasonable doubt exists to create that fear. So there should be no objection to relocation of such data recording instruments. If one truly believes that the world is getting hotter, then it such data should be present everywhere.