[maersksealand]

These pics from surfacestations.org really struck me with the absurd selective blindness of global warming researchers. It shows the location of ground-based temperature sensors whose recordings are currently used as ‘proof’ that global temperatures have been rising.
The urban heat island effect is often cited as one reason ground-based temperature readings are higher than atmospheric readings taken by sattelites (see point 4 of my post on that).
Basically, the heat generated by cities full of vehicles, people, steel, glass and concrete cause cities to be much warmer than other areas.
Global warming skeptics contend that most of the ‘global warming’ detected by ground-based temperature recording stations are located very near (or inside!) cities, thus skewing the data.
Global warming supporters say that the urban heat island effect has been accounted for in the interpreted data. The skeptics counter that the effect has not been adequately accounted for.
The gist of it: Skeptics feel that global temperatures have NOT been rising nearly as much as the alarmists claim. The perceived and much-touted data showing tempeature increase is mostly due to inaccurate data from badly-placed recording stations.
Take a look for yourself at a small selection of sensor locations from the surfacestations.org page and tell me if the stations are badly placed in utterly idiotic (or intentionally biased to get high temperature readings) areas.
Explanation follow pix:
———–
GOOD PLACES TO GET CORRUPTED TEMPERATURE DATA FROM:

Apparently the firefighters use that BBQ can 3 times a week. Wonder if that (or the concrete or steel tower or air-con vents) has ANY effect on the temperature readings?

Close to an air-con vent and VERY close to a steel chain-link fence. Quiz for you: What happens to the temperature sensor when it’s a hot day and the house owner switches the air-con on while the fence absorbs and radiates heat from the sunlight?

Out in the middle of bare ground, a few feet away air-conditioning vents, where planes land after running their engiens for hours. Does this location skew the temperature readings AT ALL?

No? Then how about close-up of the same box, showing a non-fluorescent light bulb located inside the temperature reading station shelter itself? After all, everyone knows that light bulbs switched on for hours do NOT get hot enough to burn your hand.

Coyote Blog’s post also has the accompanying temperature measurement graph…

Which shows a sudden, inexplicable spike. Just around the time the air-con unit was installed! MUST be coincidence, because global warming is DEFINATELEY PROVARN AND REEL, right?
Just like in this case where:

Temperature graph shows a sudden spike in 2000…

Which just happens to be, pure coincidence, cannot possibly affect the data, the time when the temperature sensor was shifted to a totally inappropriate urban site contaminated with hot asphalt, car radiators, nearby buildings, air conditioning exhaust, etc.

ADOI… Sitting right next to a barrel used to burn trash. Burn = fire = heat = higher temperature recordings, yes no?

Oh look… I don’t suppose that being surrounded by hot aphsalt and brick walls – that reflect sunlight and heat at the sensor – would in any way affect the temperature data? But wait! Look what’s on the other side…

Why, it’s the good old, heat spewing, data distorting air-conditioner exhaust vents. Huge ones at that! If you doubt that these vents can really affect the temperature recordings, just stand in front of one for five minutes and tell me if you change your mind.
Heck, why don’t they just set up stations next to active volcanoes or the open wood fires at Kenny Rogers restaurants? Heck, why not set up stations in Heck? That should gatehr some really convincing alarmist data to jolt the masses into acknowledging global warming!
———–
Seriously folks, even I in my thesis – with my lazy disposition, lack of interest and disregard for the proper procedure of sitting on my butt looking at bugs every day – never ran an experiment as uncaringly or ineptly as the researchers monitoring those temperature sensors.
Just listen to what the IPCC says: Urban heat island effects are real but local, and have a negligible influence (less than 0.006°C per decade over land and zero over the oceans) on these values.
So concrete hot enough to fry eggs on, raw steel, hot-air spweing air conditioners and point-blank filament bulbs have a negligible influence on temperature reading values, eh?
If you still aren’t convinced that the surroundings affect the data, then take a look at this posting that compares two sites – one pictured above that has rising temperature records, and another one which has FALLING temperature records.
Does any ‘scientific’ body give a care about the falling temperature graph? About any of this invalidated data? Not the IPCC, that’s for sure! Why include information that runs contrary to your pre-formed conclusions? All that will do is foster rational debate, and the IPCC don’t want none of that shikes. It might lessen their funding and paycheques! Horrors!
Temperature recording stations – as ineptly planned, shoddily executed and downright falsified as most of the rest of global warming pseudo-science.
See also this post for more ranting against the moron machine.

[YorkHunt]

Every planet has a demise at some point. Hope and do not think its going to be us anytime soon.