Hmm.. I wonder if this is why surface temps tise faster than satelite?

Question

In some of these pictures, our temperature data gathering sites are built right on top off paved parking lots, and we are supposed to have the best temperature gathering data. I wonder what some of the other countries look like? Probably place gauges next to incinerators?

http://gallery.surfacestations.org/UCAR-slides/index.html

Answer 1

I love how the believers of AGW can look at those pictures and claim the problem is with the satellites and not the surface monitoring stations. How can they believe that! I know they believe they don't use the data from the sites located near a big city. Well the one placed on gravel looks to be out in the middle of a green field, so why did they put gravel under it? It's going to cause the temperature of that gathering site to increase due to it being on gravel instead of grass.

Answer 2

Some of those 'stations' are there to monitor the temps for that specific location. Take the waste water treatment plant in WA. The reason that there is a 'station' there,is to monitor the temp for the most efficient operation of the waste water plant.  Some of the other sites listed as having"unnatural" ground cover,actually do have "natural" ground cover,made from the local material.  Have you ever been to central Washington? Lots of cinder and lava rock "naturally" cover the area. There is more to climate change caused by AGW,than just temps. There's rainfall,and snowfall amounts and rates,as well as droughts and floods. Also the intensity of storms.

Answer 3

you can bring up the human error argument in temp readings all you want - but natures thermometers don't lie:

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroo...

http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/environ...

http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2006/mar...

http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/releases/2003/13...

http://visibleearth.nasa.gov/view_set.ph...

Answer 4

The problem is with the satellites, not the surface stations.  Satellites have various biases, such as orbital decay.  They rely on weather balloons to correct for these biases, but there are issues with weather balloons too.

Thermometers on weather balloons didn't used to be covered.  Just like thermometers on the ground, they're only accurate when in the shade and not being constantly bombarded with solar radiation.  Eventually people realized this and started putting covers over the thermometers, so now they read more accurately, but as a result have shown less warming than probably really happened.

Further discussion of satellite measurements below.  Not that I think you're genuinely interested, but just in case somebody who reads this wants to know.

The surface stations have been proven time and time again to be accurate and reliable.  Photographs don't trump scientific data, no matter how much you want them to.