|
|
Post by sandypine on Aug 21, 2024 11:58:45 GMT
Met Office Records Hottest Day of the Year at a Weather Station Next to a Massive Heat-Generating Electricity Sub-Station This is supposed to be the Professional body tasked with giving us accurate weather and climate information dailysceptic.org/2024/08/20/met-office-records-hottest-day-of-the-year-at-a-weather-station-next-to-a-massive-heat-generating-electricity-sub-station/Earlier this month the Met Office declared the hottest day of the year so far in the U.K. with the temperature reaching 34.8ºC in Cambridge. The Met Office claimed it was only the eleventh time since 1961 that the temperature had reached that level, with six of these occasions having been recorded in the last 10 years. Needless to say, missing from the account was a note that the station in Cambridge’s National Institute for Agricultural Botany (NIAB) is located just metres from a massive heat-generating electricity sub-station complex. Electricity sub-stations give off so much heat into the surrounding atmosphere there are even plans to trap it for commercial use. The Cambridge station at Histon has recently benefitted from a £5 million upgrade including the installation of a third heat-pumping transformer. It is difficult to think of a worse place to locate an instrument to accurately measure nearby uncorrupted air temperatures, other than favoured Met sites at international airports and solar farms. More in link |
|
|
|
Post by patman post on Aug 21, 2024 12:40:09 GMT
Nevertheless, the temperature of 34.8 deg C was recorded — as were the temperatures at other locations — and I don't see anyone complaining that "heat island effect" (ie, the absorption of solar radiation by local buildings, roads and infrastructure) contributed to the increase in surrounding temperatures in other areas...
|
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Aug 21, 2024 13:28:36 GMT
Nevertheless, the temperature of 34.8 deg C was recorded — as were the temperatures at other locations — and I don't see anyone complaining that "heat island effect" (ie, the absorption of solar radiation by local buildings, roads and infrastructure) contributed to the increase in surrounding temperatures in other areas... I think the point is is that the Heat Island effect is being recorded as the actual temperature. No doubt it will contribute to local temperature increases to an unknown degree but to use Heat Islands being the actual to put into an average is like selecting frost pockets as the actual temperatures and feeding those en masse into an average. Even worse is using those temperatures as a comparison against historic temperatures of the same locations and then crying 'Look we are burning up'. In the US they recognised this problem and in 2005 created over 100 new pristine stations unaffected by close proximity to man made heat stores or emitters. Strange to say these have recorded virtually no increase in almost 20 years despite the shout of tipping points being past. US Climate reference network. climateataglance.com/climate-at-a-glance-u-s-temperatures/#:~:text=The%20United%20States%20has%20experienced%20no%20significant%20warming,of%20temperature%20stations%20located%20throughout%20the%20United%20States. So once you remove heat island effects and ignore the adjusted figures that take account of inconsistencies in the measured temps then we have effectively no warming in a very important area in climate science input. |
|
|
|
Post by patman post on Aug 21, 2024 19:55:14 GMT
I don’t think I’m going to junk the Met office on the say-so of a conspiracy site… The Met Office has a weather station network across the whole UK, with more than 200 automatic stations.
These weather stations measure a large variety of different meteorological parameters, including air temperature; atmospheric pressure; rainfall; wind speed and direction, humidity; cloud height and visibility.
Stations are usually around 40 km apart, enabling us to record the weather associated with the typical low pressure and frontal systems that cross the UK.
Consistency of measurements is vital across the network, both for informing our forecasts and for the long-term weather and climate records of the UK.
To ensure consistency of measurements in the records, weather stations must meet strict criteria, in alignment with meteorological organisations across the world. This includes specific standards on the levels of grass-cover within the observations area, as well as having enough clear space for the weather station to be free from the influence of non-meteorological factors on the readings.www.metoffice.gov.uk/weather/learn-about/how-forecasts-are-made/observations/weather-stations |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Aug 21, 2024 21:37:51 GMT
Well the highest recorded temperature in the UK was at RAF Coningsby in 2022 - the temperature recording station is next to an active taxiway.
So whether that was really a high temperature or just the exhaust of a jet is open to question.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rebirth on Aug 22, 2024 5:49:00 GMT
Nevertheless, the temperature of 34.8 deg C was recorded — as were the temperatures at other locations — and I don't see anyone complaining that "heat island effect" (ie, the absorption of solar radiation by local buildings, roads and infrastructure) contributed to the increase in surrounding temperatures in other areas... Why are you so eager to support a dishonest system of measurement? Do you have something invested into it? You do know it's immoral and once it gets out into the mainstream it will do a lot of damage. Fool me once... |
|
|
|
Post by steppenwolf on Aug 22, 2024 6:34:19 GMT
It's basically brainwashing. People have been told lies about the climate by so many people for so long that they believe it. And if anyone points out a few facts that don't fit the climate orthodoxy they're just accused of spreading conspiracy theories. And they're told that they're stupid because 99% of scientists believe it - which is exactly what happened with the parable about the emperor's new clothes. The conmen selling the non-existent clothes said that only stupid people couldn't see the clothes, so naturally everybody said the clothes were great.
I realised that it was all bollocks years ago when it became apparent that the organisations that were promoting the climate models were filtering their data by feeding it through their unproved models. That's not science. Any model can appear to work if you change the data to fit its predictions.
|
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Aug 22, 2024 7:21:12 GMT
I don’t think I’m going to junk the Met office on the say-so of a conspiracy site… The Met Office has a weather station network across the whole UK, with more than 200 automatic stations.
These weather stations measure a large variety of different meteorological parameters, including air temperature; atmospheric pressure; rainfall; wind speed and direction, humidity; cloud height and visibility.
Stations are usually around 40 km apart, enabling us to record the weather associated with the typical low pressure and frontal systems that cross the UK.
Consistency of measurements is vital across the network, both for informing our forecasts and for the long-term weather and climate records of the UK.
To ensure consistency of measurements in the records, weather stations must meet strict criteria, in alignment with meteorological organisations across the world. This includes specific standards on the levels of grass-cover within the observations area, as well as having enough clear space for the weather station to be free from the influence of non-meteorological factors on the readings.www.metoffice.gov.uk/weather/learn-about/how-forecasts-are-made/observations/weather-stationsYou do not have to do on the basis of a conspiracy site. Try the world Meteorological Organisation which has defined clearly and specified what observation sites must meet in terms of location, proximity to heat sources and any other factor that may affect the reading. Your problem is because it is ONLY reported on what you term a conspiracy site it becomes not true despite the fact it is taken directly from WMO CMIO ratings as supplied by the WMO themselves as regards Met Office weather stations. dailysceptic.org/2024/03/01/exclusive-a-third-of-u-k-met-office-temperature-stations-may-be-wrong-by-up-to-5c-foi-reveals/It is statistical nonsense to report UK/world temperatures to 0.1 C accuracy using readings that have a confirmed accuracy of +/- 2.5. |
|
|
|
Post by patman post on Aug 22, 2024 21:27:12 GMT
Nevertheless, the temperature of 34.8 deg C was recorded — as were the temperatures at other locations — and I don't see anyone complaining that "heat island effect" (ie, the absorption of solar radiation by local buildings, roads and infrastructure) contributed to the increase in surrounding temperatures in other areas... Why are you so eager to support a dishonest system of measurement? Do you have something invested into it? You do know it's immoral and once it gets out into the mainstream it will do a lot of damage. Fool me once... My investment is my kids and their futures and, more immediately, the ways forward for those clients we advise. While it’s sometimes worthwhile keeping an eye on the opinions of those skeptical about many things, two groups I’ve found sink into insignificance (if they’re not positively dangerous) when matched against the available verifiable info, are anti-vaxxers and climate change skeptics. The Royal Society has been on the right side of science so often for so long, it’s my initial go-to learned body for info on any scientific divergences… royalsociety.org/news-resources/projects/climate-change-evidence-causes/basics-of-climate-change/royalsociety.org/current-topics/climate-change-biodiversity/ |
|
|
|
Post by Rebirth on Aug 23, 2024 5:11:16 GMT
Why are you so eager to support a dishonest system of measurement? Do you have something invested into it? You do know it's immoral and once it gets out into the mainstream it will do a lot of damage. Fool me once... My investment is my kids and their futures and, more immediately, the ways forward for those clients we advise. While it’s sometimes worthwhile keeping an eye on the opinions of those skeptical about many things, two groups I’ve found sink into insignificance (if they’re not positively dangerous) when matched against the available verifiable info, are anti-vaxxers and climate change skeptics. The Royal Society has been on the right side of science so often for so long, it’s my initial go-to learned body for info on any scientific divergences… royalsociety.org/news-resources/projects/climate-change-evidence-causes/basics-of-climate-change/royalsociety.org/current-topics/climate-change-biodiversity/You appear to be heading off into tangents, and if you cared about these sort of things then I would have thought you'd be a little more sceptical. Sandypine is obviously questioning the narrative, which you too easily dismiss as something from a conspiracy site, but you haven't managed to actually debunk his specific argument.
|
|
|
|
Post by steppenwolf on Aug 23, 2024 6:22:54 GMT
Why are you so eager to support a dishonest system of measurement? Do you have something invested into it? You do know it's immoral and once it gets out into the mainstream it will do a lot of damage. Fool me once... My investment is my kids and their futures and, more immediately, the ways forward for those clients we advise. While it’s sometimes worthwhile keeping an eye on the opinions of those skeptical about many things, t wo groups I’ve found sink into insignificance (if they’re not positively dangerous) when matched against the available verifiable info, are anti-vaxxers and climate change skeptics.The Royal Society has been on the right side of science so often for so long, it’s my initial go-to learned body for info on any scientific divergences… royalsociety.org/news-resources/projects/climate-change-evidence-causes/basics-of-climate-change/royalsociety.org/current-topics/climate-change-biodiversity/Nobody is sceptical about climate change. The sceptiscism is about whether it's mainly caused by man-made CO2 and neither of your links address the detailed attribution of the amount of warming we're experiencing, broken down by specific cause. And you need to be aware that even genuine scientists have made very big mistakes in the past. The biggest relatively recent one was the claim that the rate of expansion of the universe was slowing down, whereas in fact it's speeding up. This is is a pretty major error. Stephen Hawking's book "A Brief History of time" devotes a large section to the "fact" that the rate of expansion of the universe is slowing down - and all of it is wrong. And why did they get it so wrong? Because that's what their theories predicted. So they ignored clear empirical evidence that it was wrong. That's what led to the new theories about dark matter/dark energy. However, the organisations, such as the IPCC, that are pushing the CO2 theory of warming are not actually scientific organisations. The IPCC, for example, has a fixed hypothesis that CO2 is causing most of the warming and it ignores any science that doesn't also either assume this or come to the same conclusion. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Aug 23, 2024 6:50:23 GMT
Why are you so eager to support a dishonest system of measurement? Do you have something invested into it? You do know it's immoral and once it gets out into the mainstream it will do a lot of damage. Fool me once... My investment is my kids and their futures and, more immediately, the ways forward for those clients we advise. While it’s sometimes worthwhile keeping an eye on the opinions of those skeptical about many things, two groups I’ve found sink into insignificance (if they’re not positively dangerous) when matched against the available verifiable info, are anti-vaxxers and climate change skeptics. The Royal Society has been on the right side of science so often for so long, it’s my initial go-to learned body for info on any scientific divergences… royalsociety.org/news-resources/projects/climate-change-evidence-causes/basics-of-climate-change/royalsociety.org/current-topics/climate-change-biodiversity/All of that of course does not alter in any way the problem with the Met Office observations and how they are fed in without dispute (other than conspiracy theorists) to the Climate Change narrative. If a doctor took the temperature of your child with a thermometer that was stated to be by an International Body only accurate to 5C and he told you it was bang on 37.0 one assumes you would be happy. Or perhaps you would ask for a thermometer that was calibrated to international standards to be sure that there was a degree of accuracy commensurate with the level of accuracy you were seeking. Asking that question in an environment where medical treatment is decided upon seems sensible, asking that question where our net zero policies are questioned becomes disruptive and dangerous. I am not sure on what basis you advise clients but if it is climate change connected then there seems to be an element of dogma in what and how you advise. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Aug 24, 2024 8:02:56 GMT
As regards the link to the Royal Society above one of their very own principles is to follow the scientific method which not only allows but demands questioning any hypothesis and regarding any fact as open to reinterpretation. This questioning process is not to be answered by reference to a consensus, or to denigration of the inquisitor but rather must be answered by reference to the data, the hypothesis and the fact alone. If a question upsets the fact then it must be considered in depth until the fact either emerges unscathed or is rejected as a fact.
For some reason this process is being lost and ignored when it comes to climate change and inquisitors are indeed being denigrated to avoid disruption of what appears to be hallowed 'facts'.
|
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Sept 15, 2024 6:40:16 GMT
All of that of course does not alter in any way the problem with the Met Office observations and how they are fed in without dispute (other than conspiracy theorists) to the Climate Change narrative. If a doctor took the temperature of your child with a thermometer that was stated to be by an International Body only accurate to 5C and he told you it was bang on 37.0 one assumes you would be happy. Or perhaps you would ask for a thermometer that was calibrated to international standards to be sure that there was a degree of accuracy commensurate with the level of accuracy you were seeking. Asking that question in an environment where medical treatment is decided upon seems sensible, asking that question where our net zero policies are questioned becomes disruptive and dangerous. I am not sure on what basis you advise clients but if it is climate change connected then there seems to be an element of dogma in what and how you advise. These days the Met Office has rebadged its daily “high” temperatures as “extreme”, all the better of course to ramp up fears of heat as part of the Net Zero education process. Last Wednesday’s “extreme” of 20.4°C was recorded at Teddington Bushy Park. As the Google Earth photo below shows, the “extreme” temperature is helped on its way by an adjacent high wall reflecting heat onto the measuring device and a large housing development warming the nearby area. Teddington Bushy Park is a junk class 4 station with internationally-recognised “uncertainties” of 2°C. Joke class 4 station might be a more apt description. How anyone can think information taken at this site is suitable for scientific work that ultimately produces a global mean temperature is a mystery.  dailysceptic.org/2024/09/13/more-horror-pictures-emerge-showing-locations-of-met-office-extreme-record-temperatures/ |
|
|
|
Post by Baron von Lotsov on Sept 15, 2024 13:45:44 GMT
Met Office Records Hottest Day of the Year at a Weather Station Next to a Massive Heat-Generating Electricity Sub-Station This is supposed to be the Professional body tasked with giving us accurate weather and climate information dailysceptic.org/2024/08/20/met-office-records-hottest-day-of-the-year-at-a-weather-station-next-to-a-massive-heat-generating-electricity-sub-station/Earlier this month the Met Office declared the hottest day of the year so far in the U.K. with the temperature reaching 34.8ºC in Cambridge. The Met Office claimed it was only the eleventh time since 1961 that the temperature had reached that level, with six of these occasions having been recorded in the last 10 years. Needless to say, missing from the account was a note that the station in Cambridge’s National Institute for Agricultural Botany (NIAB) is located just metres from a massive heat-generating electricity sub-station complex. Electricity sub-stations give off so much heat into the surrounding atmosphere there are even plans to trap it for commercial use. The Cambridge station at Histon has recently benefitted from a £5 million upgrade including the installation of a third heat-pumping transformer. It is difficult to think of a worse place to locate an instrument to accurately measure nearby uncorrupted air temperatures, other than favoured Met sites at international airports and solar farms. More in link fucking hell.
Yes i remember that story. I checked my internet temperature station monitoring and saw the ones around it were no where near. I pointed this out on YT and the crowd ridiculed me and heckled me, but I was bloody right. Thanks for the info.
|
|
