It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Study sponsored by NOAA finds that poorly-sited air temperature monitoring stations have artificially boosted global warming data
Impacts of Small-Scale Urban Encroachment on Air Temperature Observations
A field experiment was performed in Oak Ridge, TN, with four instrumented towers placed over grass at increasing distances (4, 30, 50, 124, and 300 m) from a built-up area. Stations were aligned in such a way to simulate the impact of small-scale encroachment on temperature observations. As expected, temperature observations were warmest for the site closest to the built environment with an average temperature difference of 0.31 and 0.24 °C for aspirated and unaspirated sensors respectively. Mean aspirated temperature differences were greater during the evening (0.47 °C) than day (0.16 °C). This was particularly true for evenings following greater daytime solar insolation (20+ MJDay−1) with surface winds from the direction of the built environment where mean differences exceeded 0.80 °C. The impact of the built environment on air temperature diminished with distance with a warm bias only detectable out to tower-B’ located 50 meters away.
The experimental findings were comparable to a known case of urban encroachment at a U. S. Climate Reference Network station in Kingston, RI. The experimental and operational results both lead to reductions in the diurnal temperature range of ~0.39 °C for fan aspirated sensors. Interestingly, the unaspirated sensor had a larger reduction in DTR of 0.48 °C. These results suggest that small-scale urban encroachment within 50 meters of a station can have important impacts on daily temperature extrema (maximum and minimum) with the magnitude of these differences dependent upon prevailing environmental conditions and sensing technology.
originally posted by: JesperA
a reply to: dfnj2015
Ofcourse it is, but thats not what is being discussed here. Temperature and pollution is two separate things.
originally posted by: MykeNukem
You won't get any rebuttals that deal with the actual data (data that isn't corrupt). Only Ad Hom's and Spin.
Same as usual.
originally posted by: dfnj2015
a reply to: rickymouse
The way science is supposed to be conducted is to eliminate personal bias, bigotry, prejudice, and superstition:
The problem is one side of the issue just refuses to believe in the science no matter what:
The 97% consensus on global warming
Listen to Greta's talk. She's very compelling. How can you possibly argue with her little girl logic: