Is the Quality of Weather Stations Affecting Global Warming Data?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers around the impact of the quality of weather stations on global warming data, exploring concerns about measurement accuracy and the implications for understanding climate change. Participants express varying opinions on the validity of global warming and the reliability of data sources.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • One participant suggests that the conditions around weather stations, such as the presence of air conditioning exhausts and concrete, may artificially inflate temperature readings, questioning the reliability of the data collected.
  • Another participant expresses skepticism about the general awareness of these issues, implying that the concerns raised are already widely known.
  • There is a challenge to the notion of global warming, with one participant asserting that the scientific consensus supports the reality of anthropogenic global warming (AGW) at a high confidence level.
  • A participant critiques the inconsistency in arguments against global warming, noting that various claims contradict each other and expressing frustration over the lack of a coherent stance among skeptics.
  • One participant emphasizes the uncertainty surrounding climate predictions and the potential consequences of human activity on the environment, advocating for caution despite the lack of definitive knowledge.
  • Another participant dismisses the claims made by skeptics as lacking scientific credibility, labeling them as "crackpottery."
  • A participant questions the appropriateness of the forum for the discussion, asserting that scientific claims should adhere to established guidelines regardless of the forum section.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express a range of views, with no consensus reached on the validity of global warming or the reliability of weather station data. Disagreement is evident regarding the interpretation of scientific evidence and the implications of climate change.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight the limitations in understanding climate dynamics and the challenges in predicting future outcomes based on current data. There is an acknowledgment of the complexity of the arguments surrounding global warming and the varying degrees of certainty expressed by different stakeholders.

Andre
Messages
4,296
Reaction score
73
It goes like this:

MarysvilleCA_USHCN_Site_small.jpg


The thermometer in the MMTS shelter has been pampered increasingly with lot's of cosy warming gadgets like airco exhausts, while concrete removes the moisture of the soil evaporating and cooling. No wonder that it is nice and warm.

See what happens with a correctly maintained site:

OrlandCA_USHCN_Site_small.jpg


Source:

http://surfacestations.org/

Why not join and take a picture of your local official weather station from the list here

Kristen has done so enthousiastically and these are her results:

http://www.globalwarminghoax.com/e107_plugins/content/content.php?content.7
http://www.globalwarminghoax.com/e107_plugins/content/content.php?content.7.2
http://www.globalwarminghoax.com/e107_plugins/content/content.php?content.7.3
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
Al Gore dies inside a little bit every time you post, Andre.

Keep it up.
 
Is there anyone who doesn't already know this?
 
FredGarvin said:
Al Gore dies inside a little bit every time you post, Andre.

Keep it up.

So your position is that GW is not real?

I believe that the official consensus is that GW is absolutely real, and confidence in AGW is around 90%.

But who cares about what real scientists are saying, right?
 
I'm sorry, but anti-global warming people always change their theory. One says that the globe isn't warming, another says that it is but it's a natural process, others say CO2 doesn't cause it to warm up, others say that that CO2 does cause it to warm up but that we are not producing enough CO2 to cause it to warm it up, other's say the arctic ice isn't reliable, others say it is but it's something that naturally happens, etc etc etc etc

I can't follow something that is so inconsistent. If they're SO sure that global warming doesn't exist, or does exist but is natural, or whatever, then they should already have made a rational non-self-contradictory argument.

right now the argument seems to be: Well, we are positively sure that the globe might or might not be warming up and if it is then it's not our fault but if it isn't then it doesn't matter.

I think I'll follow the more rational approach: we are spewing a lot of chemicals into the air. We suspect this might be warming the globe, but we're not 100% sure what this may cause. we don't know anywhere near enough about the weather to predict what this can do in 10, 50, or 100 years. Better safe than sorry.

many environmentalists in interviews, if you listen closely, will say that the warming is only a strong hypothesis, but the truth is that we just don't know what could happen, and that's the scariest part. you can't be prepared for something you don't know is coming.
 
Last edited:
What's more, Andre is not qualified to dismiss the science, and GD is not a theory development forum. This is nothing but crackpottery.
 
Is the reason why this is posted here in GD (unless it was moved here) is that one is expecting that it would have the same level of requirements as anywhere else on PF? Or is this simply meant as a collosal JOKE?

If that is the idea, let me make sure that this false notion is DESTROYED. The PF Guidelines applies even on here if you are making any kind of scientific claims. And please post this in the PROPER FORUM from now on.

Zz.