nevermind satellites, just diff the temp records from say, 1950-2000 and the ones reporting that data today and there's a lot of jank. urbanization around the thermometers also makes it appear as though global temperatures are rising, but all the data really says is that cities are heat islands.
first order: verify satellite data. Secondly, move all sensors to locations where they are unaffected by heat islanding and other man-made influences.
yes, if a city gets hotter in temperature because it grows, that obviously is a concern, but it doesn't affect people in the countryside, or on the other side of the planet, etc. (1/1000th as much if anything, i'll hedge).
the second thing will never happen. I am sure someone will reply why it's literally impossible and stupid to put thermometers someplace where the weather is natural. Because if we did move all of the sensors, suddenly there wouldn't appear to be any 1.5C change or anything, and there's thousands of egos at stake, here.
Google "urban heat island effect site:realclimate.org"
Scientists have been aware of the effect and correcting for it since before you heard about it. In general, if you can think of something in five minutes, scientists (whose lifetime job is to consider these problems) have considered that.
top post is from 13 years ago. there are more recent meta studies and research done. ( i know of at least 3, that were 'rebutted' by realclimate.org but not satisfactorily.) it's fine to handwave on a forum "oh of course they've contemplated this you simpleton!" I've kept up with the literature; i've read the IPCC reports, for years. there is contention about this, about the heat record (like, prehistoric).
GISS and GHCN use, among other things, models to homogenize temperatures across UHI and "rural" areas, and these are two i found with a cursory search. there are others. they only agree that it is, for sure, getting warmer. they arrive at different values.
Different.
Values.
The satellite date we've been using since 1978? well, every 10-15 years they get replaced, and the satellites report different TSI values. (i can link a picture of the satellite TSI data as a single graph if you'd like!)
Different.
Values.
> "Instead, most groups (including NASA GISS), were relying on automated computer programs that tried to guess when station changes might have introduced a bias. These programs used statistical algorithms that compared each station record to those of neighboring stations and applying “homogenization adjustments” to the data.
I'm not sure i know the exact locations, but NASA and NOAA do, and people who have seen the data and locations (and therefore know what is rural or not) say things like this about realclimate.org's handwave of UHI:
> "Because urban areas still only represent 3-4% of the global land surface, this should not substantially influence global temperatures.
> However, most of the weather stations used for calculating the land component of global temperatures are located in urban or semi-urban areas. This is especially so for the stations with the longest temperature records. One reason why is because it is harder to staff and maintain a weather station in an isolated, rural location for a century or longer."
further from a paper critiquing the GHCN model's homogenization algorithm:
> "When they were compiling the Global Historical Climatology Network dataset, the National Climatic Data Center included some basic station metadata, i.e., data describing the station and its environment. For each station, they provided the station name, country, latitude, longitude and elevation. They also provided a number of classifications to describe the environment of the station - whether it was an airport station or not; if it was on an island, near the coast or near a lake; and what the average ecosystem of the stations’ surroundings was, e.g., desert, ice, forest, etc"
oh and an interesting note, if you are wondering "well, how many fully rural stations do we have data for at least 95% of the 'last 100 years?"
If you initially make factually wrong comment then you should at least apologize and say that you are sorry for being wrong, not keep pushing your agenda further.
Your behaviour is both incorrect (you were shown at the specific place) and intentional (you have ignored that). So, I have downvoted all your posts in this topic because I have observed the efficiency of the correct words to your ignorance. Usually I am glad to argue about the climate topic, but sometimes downvotes work better.
