Re: Seguimento Europa 2010
First of all: bemvindo! Y gracias pela sua informação!
Measuring in the city is measuring in a clearly different environment. Deducing things based on the similarity is not enough. We have WMO standards. I am afraid that in many countries Weatherburo's seem to forget them. In The netherlands, I have now found at least 8 stations measuring totally not according to WMo guidelines. I mean: no trees allowed within 100 m and ONLY 1/10 height of the distance outside that radius...And I find stations with trees 20 m or even 10 m from the radiationshield. I know ti can be difficult to find a good location that is kept the same way, so it is easy to say they are foolish. They are not. But research has shown things blocking wind strongly affect measurements. Most of all with high insolation/re-radiation situations.
Then, as I have already, said, the sensorscreen and its maintanance are very important.
The research centre I saw was in an enclosed garden, so it is affected by blocking winds and from that angle it resembles Sevilla San Pablo. I also saw again Stevensonscreens, which are badly ventilated by their contruction, adding to an error. Most of all in low wind/strong sun situations.
There you go. The typical signal of human influences and most of all city/heatisle effects.
If it measures in a garden, it has a clear influence that makes it deviate from the real climate (measuring the gardens microclimate instead). If uses a Stevensonscreen than another error is likely introduced. and error that make intercomparisons difficult.
Well it is better than nothing and relocation stations is costly and your record for climatic purposes is in shambles. You need to use two locations for a significant amount of time to intercompare.
Which is to me a rather peculiar thought anyway and at least goes beyond my personal interest, which is a scientific one which in itself means that you are not going to do these sort of biased comparisons or compare with one goal on your mind.
First of all: bemvindo! Y gracias pela sua informação!
Measuring in the city is measuring in a clearly different environment. Deducing things based on the similarity is not enough. We have WMO standards. I am afraid that in many countries Weatherburo's seem to forget them. In The netherlands, I have now found at least 8 stations measuring totally not according to WMo guidelines. I mean: no trees allowed within 100 m and ONLY 1/10 height of the distance outside that radius...And I find stations with trees 20 m or even 10 m from the radiationshield. I know ti can be difficult to find a good location that is kept the same way, so it is easy to say they are foolish. They are not. But research has shown things blocking wind strongly affect measurements. Most of all with high insolation/re-radiation situations.
Then, as I have already, said, the sensorscreen and its maintanance are very important.
The research centre I saw was in an enclosed garden, so it is affected by blocking winds and from that angle it resembles Sevilla San Pablo. I also saw again Stevensonscreens, which are badly ventilated by their contruction, adding to an error. Most of all in low wind/strong sun situations.
There you go. The typical signal of human influences and most of all city/heatisle effects.
If it measures in a garden, it has a clear influence that makes it deviate from the real climate (measuring the gardens microclimate instead). If uses a Stevensonscreen than another error is likely introduced. and error that make intercomparisons difficult.
Well it is better than nothing and relocation stations is costly and your record for climatic purposes is in shambles. You need to use two locations for a significant amount of time to intercompare.
Which is to me a rather peculiar thought anyway and at least goes beyond my personal interest, which is a scientific one which in itself means that you are not going to do these sort of biased comparisons or compare with one goal on your mind.
