I've said repeatedly that the temperature data is a mess. Long time readers will remember how the Surface Stations project documented poorly sited weather stations (like ones in the middle of baking parking lot asphalt), where 89% of the weather stations did not meet the Government's acceptable siting requirements. They all read too hot, sometimes by as much as 2 degrees.
Long term readers may remember how NOAA (the US Government's weather bureau) established a "Climate Reference Network" of only well-sited weather stations. The Reference Network shows that the poorly-sited stations overstate warming by at least half a degree. Remember, we are told that temperature increased by 0.6 degrees over the course of the entire 20th Century. Take away that half a degree and you have no warming at all over 100 years.
Yeah, that's quite a crisis.
But never let a crisis go to waste, even if you have to manufacture one. What have governments been doing to get more warming? Well, the UK.Gov is installing brand new weather stations, 80% of which not only are not acceptably sited, but are in Class 4 or 5 - the worst of the worst:
Over eight in 10 of the 113 temperature measuring stations opened in the last 30 years by the U.K. Met Office have been deliberately or carelessly sited in junk Class 4 and 5 locations where unnatural heating errors of 2°C and 5°C respectively are possible. This shock revelation, obtained by a recent Freedom of Information request, must cast serious doubt on the ability of the Met Office to provide a true measurement of the U.K. air temperature, a statistic that is the bedrock of support for Net Zero. Over time, increasing urban encroachment has corrupted almost the entire network of 384 stations with 77.9% of the stations rated Class 4 and 5, but it beggars belief that new stations are being sited in such locations.
Remember, these aren't 80 year old stations that used to be in a pasture and are now in a parking lot. These are brand spanking new ones. Sitting in parking lots.
Tagged Climate Bullshit because, well, you know.
4 comments:
I also wonder just how they can say that the temperature has risen by some number like 1.2 degrees C. over the past 100 years, when in 1924 we did not have any way to measure temperature within the same degree of certainty that we do today. If the average temperature today was say, 22.3 degrees C., I doubt that we know if the average temp from one hundred years ago could be claimed to have been 21.5 degrees C. when it might have been 21.1 C. or 22.3 C.
I have never bought the climate change hoax anyway. It was called global warming, until the numbers showed extreme winters. So then they just called it climate change, and that was responsible for any weather, cold or hot, dry or rainy, etc. That is the inconvenient truth, that liberals always find convenient ways to back up corrupt data, ala Covid 19 and such.
Of course it's a manufactured crisis. Creating such things Is a long honored leftist tradition.
Extrapolation of current observations. Of course that is highly suspect means. It is only significant when there is a bias. The bias is inherent.
Leif Svalgaard has some interesting things to say about the climate.
https://svalgaard.leif.org/Climate-Change-My-View.pdfsvalgaard.leif
Post a Comment