undefined

[-]

That's the reason the banana trees are growing, too. They read the temperature measurements from next to the airport runways.

by vixen991 days ago|

[-]

Some time ago an FOI (Freedom of Information) request to the UK Met Office got the following response:

Background: Class 1–2 are regarded as excellent or very good exposures, Class 3 permits uncertainties up to about 1 °C, Class 4 permits uncertainties up to about 2 °C, and Class 5 permits uncertainties up to about 5 °C because of nearby artificial heat sources or other exposure problems.

According to analyses of the released data, approximately:

22% of stations were Classes 1–3, about 49% were Class 4, about 29% were Class 5.

I guess there must be very good reasons for not ensuring that the majority of stations are Class 1-3.

by inigyou17 hours ago|

[-]

What's involved in ensuring a weather station meets class 1 requirements?

by notahacker14 hours ago|

[-]

It's a theoretical optimum location for measuring whether temperature at a weather station is likely to be representative of average temperature across the surrounding area, with requirements for flatness of land, vegetation of the appropriate type and height, no shade between sunrise and sunset, no windbreaks and distance from reflective surfaces.

Has nothing to do with its suitability for use in longitudinal study, because whilst a site next to a massive concrete windbreak might be a degree or two hotter than other locations in a region, unless the concrete windbreak is a recent phenomenon, it can't be the cause of temperatures at that site being higher in the 2020s than they were in the 2000s or 1970s...

https://www.bbc.com/weather/articles/crm04vm30x9o

[-]

The Lingwood site is class 5 because it's in some guy's garden and surrounded by trees/hedges that block airflow. Class 5 sites have +/- 5 degrees of uncertainty and shouldn't be used for climatology under any circumstances.

As to the runway point you're being sarcastic about - yes, that can happen. The UK set a record temperature in July 2022, which the BBC reports was set at Coningsby in Lincolnshire:

In fact it was set at RAF Coningsby at the exact moment two Typhoon fighter jets landed, and lasted only for a minute or two i.e. it was recording jet exhaust from the landing.

This fact had to be dug up through FOIA requests, it wasn't advertised by the Met Office or British media anywhere. Brits were led to believe this had occurred in some open field near a village somewhere.

Every time you read about a record breaking temperature in Britain, you aren't being told about the atrocious state of the weather station network there. Almost all the records are being set at weather stations that can't measure change in the climate due to urban corruption or being sited at runways.

[-]

OK, got you. Clearly everywhere that recorded record temperatures last month was either next to a runway or in heat islands (which we definitely haven't had for decades) or in someone's garden, whereas all the historical benchmarks exceeded were flawless. The UK recording a temperature of over 40 celsius was actually an anomaly because of the first time a jet ever landed at a British airport.

Also the lack of rain was measurement error too.

by seszett1 days ago|

[-]

> Clearly everywhere that recorded record temperatures last month was either next to a runway

I'm not saying he's right but we had here one of the highest temperatures recorded in France these days (not the highest, but we did reach a bit more than 42°C) and there's a runway just a kilometre away or so. QED.

It's used approximately twice a week by Cessnas, but probably on this day the plane had directed its exhaust on the weather station and also straight on our garden.

Not sure if the pilot was French, but there's a good chance it was an English immigrant.

by inigyou1 days ago|

[-]

You dropped your /s

[-]

It was clearly hot last month, but that isn't what anyone is arguing about in this thread. Hot months have happened throughout history. inigyou scoffed at the idea the appearance of long term climate change can be caused by immigration. But they shouldn't have scoffed, because it's one of the primary drivers of data difficulties in climatology. Do you accept this fact?

[-]

Your argument for "the appearance of long term climate change can be caused by immigration" is that an individual high temperature was recorded at an RAF base, ironically one of the places in the country you're least likely to find an immigrant. It was one of a number of places to record a temperature over 40 degrees, compared with the previous high point of 38.7 degrees (including all the airports and RAF bases and urban heat islands). Indeed even if we choose to believe Toby Young's tinfoil hat brigade's claims that it was definitely boosted by a jet engine and not the more standard explanation for minute-to-minute temperature rises of the sun coming out, it was still hotter than any previous day ever recorded anywhere in the UK before that supposed jet engine landing, and I'm pretty sure we've landed jets there in summer before.

Nobody honestly believes that the reason the UK is recording hotter temperatures all over the country is because immigration is driving Typhoons to land differently at RAF Coningsby

[-]

You're clearly not arguing in good faith, so I'll just leave it with this:

> and not the more standard explanation for minute-to-minute temperature rises of the sun coming out

It was a cloudless day.

[-]

I mean, it's better faith in the original argument which was a bunch of ludicrous FUD blaming measurement error for climate change, as if thermometers hadn't been located near heat islands and airports for decades and crank blogs had a better idea how to deal with measurement error than meteorologists. The irony is I could actually make a better argument for immigration being a factor in climate change (moving to a more economically developed country really does increase your carbon footprint...) but that would involve actually acknowledging it's an issue and other people cause it too...

If you had an actual answer for what made the temperature higher on that day at that site (and 46 other sites) than it had ever been there or anywhere else (including all the other airports and heat islands) even before aircraft allegedly landed, and what Typhoon operations have to do with immigration anyway, you wouldn't be stuck repeating the unsupported claims of a political blog about the absence of cloud (the Met Office recorded cloud coverage of 1 oktas at 3pm at that site that day, but I guess Chris Morrison who wasn't there and doesn't exactly hide his partisanship is wayyy more reliable than the weather station's lidar)

by card_zero1 days ago|

[-]

I'd be happier if you'd thrown in some concession like "I admit data is sometimes bad quality". That wouldn't mean agreeing with your opponent's implicit denial that any warming is happening. Your side doesn't have to be perfect in order to be in the right, and if you claim infallibility it looks less credible, to me. Is it more important to laugh at this guy, than to be scrupulous?

It may spoil an entertaining deliberate confusion, but you know the airports with the jets, and the cities full of immigrants, were clearly stated as separate from the start: "two sources of corruption ... the first ... the second".

[-]

I haven't claimed infallibility though, I've even explicitly pointed out that if we choose to take the climate sceptic blog's claims that 3 planes landing some distance away from the weather station added 1.3 degrees to the RAF Coningsby temperature seriously it was still the hottest day ever recorded in that place before the planes landed, and in lots of other places too.

Immigrants were explicitly linked to supposed airport-induced measurement error "as population goes up due to immigration...jet travel goes up and this causes more traffic which warms the air at these weather stations" in the original post and doubled down on by these immigrants supposedly being "a primary driver of data difficulties in climatology". I found it amusing that the example posed was a RAF base...

by pasquinelli14 hours ago|

[-]

> I'd be happier if you'd thrown in some concession like "I admit data is sometimes bad quality".

"be reasonable, meet them halfway."

by selimthegrim9 hours ago|

[-]

Look if you have the inside take on a systematic inaccuracy in weather stations time to follow the underpants gnomes and profit. I am sure you can make a killing in crop insurance futures.

by mike_hearn8 hours ago|

[-]

Crop insurers don't pay out based on what governments say the temperature was, they pay out based on verified crop damage. So, unless you can see a smart trading strategy that takes that into account (I'm all ears!) then I'm not sure how to profit based on these problems.

by selimthegrim7 hours ago|

[-]

You should tell that to the people in America caught trying to defraud them by sabotaging weather stations, no?

by inigyou1 days ago|

[-]

You know what else happened 125 years ago? Less carbon dioxide in the atmosphere

by vixen9923 hours ago|

[-]

Moreover with 78% of UK Met Office temperature measuring sites failing to meet Class 1 or 2 standards ex FOI request), the reported temperatures are all spot on! Might add that the ~ 2 trillion tons of concrete associated with energy-producing-humans which we've taken from under the earth and dumped on top since 1900 has had zero effect on any local temperatures. As we all know, the storage heater principle only works if you buy those devices you get from home appliance stores.

by notahacker20 hours ago|

[-]

And if a few dozen weather stations records temperatures a couple of degrees higher than any of them recorded in their previous decades of operation, only an idiot would conclude that the day was actually warmer than previous days, when it could be because those weather stations were within 100m of bodies of water or not as exposed to the wind as parts of the surrounding environment, just like they always had been.

As we all know, meteorologists know nothing about heat islands, which actually work by saving up all the heat from urban areas built last century and discharging it in comparatively rural areas in the 2020s.

by foxglacier1 days ago|

[-]

You're using the dishonest argument technique of strawmanning. The claim you're sarcastically criticizing is not one that he made. It's one you created yourself just so you could ridicule it. You did this before too with your statement about the Lingwood temperature being due to weather stations at runways. I think what's happened is you've sensed a faint ghost of heresy and were so offended that you neglected to think rationally because fighting your perceived enemies is more important to you than knowledge or understanding.

[1]https://rmets.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/cms/asset/9c47b6b2-9d1...

[-]

I didn't create the claim "almost all the records are being set at weather stations that can't measure change in the climate due to urban corruption or being sited at runways", the OP did. When we've had June records for days without rain, duration above temperature thresholds and peak temperatures in rural areas just last month it's.... kind of impossible not to sneer at the insinuation that "almost all" such records are artefacts of insufficient quality monitoring sites.

It was also insinuated that the temperature range here on this day[1] in 2022 wouldn't be abnormal in a country which had previously never experienced more than 38.7 degrees if it wasn't for the jets landing at 3:10 ish which a climate sceptic blog was excited enough to file a FOIA request to find. I don't think the person "neglecting to think rationally" is the one highlighting the absurdity of suggesting the real reason an air base recorded its highest ever temperature was routine landings of aircraft based there...

I think what's happened is you're so determined to defend arguments which are indefensible - whether it's because you don't like the sarcasm or because you actually sympathise with the idea that global warming is just data corruption - you've resorted even to suggesting that even citing counterexamples like Lingwood is an illegitimate approach to debating pseudoscience...

by benj1111 days ago|

[-]

But it's still hotter than any previous time 2 typhoon fighters landed.

So unless you want to put that down to the new houses put up, it means that temperatures have gone up.

by 20after420 hours ago|

[-]

Maybe the fighter jets switched to a different kind of fuel and are now producing hotter exhaust. </s>

by ragazzina18 hours ago|

[-]

>a true and well known problem in climatology. Population increases create an appearance of warming in the dataset.

How does this explain the increasing excess deaths?

by mike_hearn8 hours ago|

https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/$s_!e9hg!,w_1456,c_limit...

[-]

What increasing excess deaths?

by Symbiote1 days ago|

[-]

London has had continual weather measurements at Kew Gardens and Greenwich for over a century.

[-]

If you look at the raw data for Kew Gardens, that site can see spikes of 2 degrees or more from hour to hour, which isn't natural in origin. It happens because it's right next to a greenhouse that sometimes vents hot air.

This is exactly the kind of urban heat island problem that is so important to avoid.

by foxglacier1 days ago|

[-]

Wouldn't immigration be a real effect too, not just poor measurement? If a person moves from a low emissions per-capita country to a high emissions per-capita country, the emissions attributable to that person would increase because of their lifestyle changes adapting to the new country.

by pixl971 days ago|