evanmjones,
There doesn’t seem to be any point to any of this, with respect.
Measuring the supposed temperature of an ever moving air mass, at a more or less fixed location achieves what, precisely? As others have already pointed out, you are probably measuring the temperature of the enclosure. As Tyndall wrote, measuring the temperature of the atmosphere is not easy. Just surrounding a thermometer with air does not necessarily give you a good indication of the air temperature, however you choose to define it.
As a simple example, should the temperature of the enclosure drop, due to cloud or similar, the thermometer may well record a drop in temperature, even though the air flowing through the louvres has not changed its temperature. Conversely, an enclosure heated by the reemergence of the Sun may show an increase in temperature, as the thermometer will respond to the increase in radiation which it absorbs from the enclosure walls.
Although it seemed like a good idea at the time, plonking a heap of thermometers here there and everywhere, in a variety of locations at varying heights above ground, with scant regard to things like katabatic or anabatic effects, let alone environmental radiative influences ranging from the Sun, to the effects of Man and his works, would seem to provide little, if anything, of value.
I believe the aim is to see whether the globe is heating or cooling. There seems to be a naive belief that Nature will somehow ensure that thermometer readings imply something other than the temperature of the thermometer, however derived. If the interior of the Earth is above the surface temperature, then the Earth must cool. No amount of CO2 can prevent this.
After four and a half billion years of sunlight, and an atmosphere containing CO2, the Earth has demonstrably cooled. To claim that the laws of thermodynamics have decided to reverse themselves recently, seems a little far fetched. Thermometers may well be showing higher temperatures, as populations and energy production increase. Warmists seem oblivious to the easily demonstrated fact that light of all frequencies, from the longest radio waves to the highest energy gamma rays and beyond, travels in straight lines from its source.
Whether this be the Sun, a lump of iron, or a diffuse gas makes no difference. Everything above absolute zero emits radiation. Pretending that meteorological instruments magically measure the temperature of the air which surrounds them is just silly. They respond to the totality of the radiation which they absorb.
It really makes no difference. Fiddling with historical temperature records achieves no more than fiddling with historical cloud cover observations, and who would bother? Or adjusting rainfall records. Or visibility, or wind speed and direction. What has any of this to do with non existent magical CO2 warming?
All a bit of a mystery, I fear. But if it’s fun, and – even more fun – if you can get somebody to pay you to do it, why not?
Cheers.
