I already wrote this and it seems to have disappeared and was never shown or acknowledged. So this one is shorter see the report authored by Anthony Watts on SurfaceStations.org entitled: " Is the U.S. Surface Temperature Record Reliable?"
It shows that 89% of the Stevenson Shelters for the temperature monitoring devices are reporting temperatures too high either due to siting in violation of the Weather Bureau standards or due to the new paint used starting in 2007.
The temperature variations due to the new paint were .3F at maximum temperatures and .8F at minimum temperatures, all giving higher readings than they should.
So this factor in global warming is not valid.
6 Answers | Add Yours
I will not like to give much weight to the report mentioned in post #1 for several reasons given below.
- First and foremost, the report does not clarify to what extent the temperature recorded by the allegedly faulty devices influence the figure of average US temperature. If these devices constitute, say, just one percent of the total temperature recorders used the net effect on average temperature may be negligible - just one hundredth of the reported errors.
- In a country like US a large scale error of this type is not likely.The writer's information sources may not be reliable, or the writer is just indulging in sensationalism to gain attention. Exactly the same error in all faulty devices creates further doubts about the reliability of the report.
- Even if the claims made in the report are correct, the temperature of other countries are reliable, and those data confirm extent of global warming.
I have to concur with the post number 2 on the assertions made. Even if one concedes that the calibration of machines is off, the issue of planetary consciousness does not go away. Environmental awareness is an absolute good in its own right, regardless of contingencies and specific contexts. There is little wrong with being able to emphasize a sense of compassion in the treatment of the earth and our use of limited and finite resources. The reality is that sustenance of the environment is something that should be practiced as a moral good, in its own right. It would be akin to suggesting that statistics that report crime have been inflated. Even if this were so, individuals still should refrain from criminal activity and treat one another as ends in of themselves and not means to ends.
With so much evidence that the ozone layer is thinning and actually has a few holes in it here and there, I have been puzzled by the strong resistance to the idea of global warming and the arguments presented from some quarters that it is, at best, a misinformed theory and, at worst, some kind of devious left-wing conspiracy. Who benefits from denying the reality of global warming? I can only conclude that those who resist or attack the idea of global warming fall into three groups: Those whose political and economic interests are invested in conducting business as usual and would be threatened by change; those who resist change in general; and those who want the whole subject to just go away because it is frightening even to consider.
I agree with post number 4.There is so much evidence of global warming but yet so much resistance to the idea of it. Fine that was one error but that doesn't mean global warming isn't there.If your not so into global warming that is fine but the least you could do are simple things such as shutting off the water when brushing your teeth, taking faster showers, turning off lights when they are not in use, unplugging things when your not using them, etc. Doing things like this won't hurt you, but global warming could.
Global warming is a scam. Recently, within the last year, there has been extensive evidence presented showing that much of the research to support "Global Warming" was not valid and has never been valid. It is junk science that is not backed up with facts. It is amazing how many so call scientists believed such crap. Now, I'm not saying that there are not problems with the environment but there is NO GLOBAL WARMING.
First, global warming is generally referred to as global climate change (GCC) by the scientific community and is not based on temperatures alone. Rather, it is changes in what are called "key indicators" of environmental conditions.
Here are some of NASAs findings for 2010:
Arctic sea ice is currently in decline at a rate of 11.5% per decade.
Land ice sheets in Antarctica and Greenland are losing mass. Antarctica has been losing more than 24 cubic miles of ice/year since 2002. At the same time Greenland's ice loss has doubled between 1996 and 2005.
Sea level rise is 3.27 mm/year. Doesn't sound like much, but that has led to 4-8 inches over the past century.
Global temperature has risen 1.5⁰F since 1880 with 2010 being the warmest on record, tying with 2005. Both the National Atmospheric and Oceanic Administration and the Climatic Research Unit (UK) concur with NASAs data.
All this is occurring as the global CO2 has reached an all-time high of 392 ppm--the highest in 650,000 years. Using ice cores, scientists were able to determine atmospheric CO2 levels during the last three glacial cycles.
Here's a couple of links where I found my info:
Join to answer this question
Join a community of thousands of dedicated teachers and students.Join eNotes