I have a Campbell Scientific SR50A distance measuring (snow and river depth) device. It measures distance and being an out of doors unit, has to know the temperature to compensate for the changes in speed of sound with temperature.
One more accurate and more expensive version has a small radiation shield with a temp measuring sensor inside, and can, in some versions, connect directly to the sensor and have that adjustment to the distance made based on the ambient temperature.
Another less expensive unit, the one I have, has none of this, and just reports out the distance as measured by reflected pulse over the round trip. Yet the manual has several warnings about errors due to not taking temperature into consideration. The suite of datalogging programs has one which allows you to sent the ambient temperature either to a fixed value (and again notes errors) or by using another temperature sensor for ambient temp and using that value in the final calculation of distance. Humidity is not a factor for this application, nor is barometric pressure.
The effort by which this research grade instrument is discussed makes it evident to me that temperature is the major factor in error, and the lack of datalogger input of barometric pressure or humidity is a less of an influence. Yet there are some graduate level papers I have read discussing the measurements of similar devices that go to painful extremes to be as accurate as possible and do include them. I wasn't able to put my fingers on references while I typed this, all having been something I ran across a couple years ago.
I am always eager to learn and even if I don't completely understand the discussions in the methods and equipment section of some of those papers, I like to read them to try to expand my understanding somewhat. Once in awhile after a couple of ultra-precise discussion, the author will say something to the effect that while it is a factor, the maximum influence is a 1/4% or some small number and will be ignored for the rest of this paper's discussion. The author recognizes the science, discusses the magnitude of the effect, and then if small, chooses to ignore it.
I am amazed at technology and the ways some things are used. An example that most of us won't run into is a vibrating wire strain gauge, and most descriptions of them will highlight their use to long term stability and repeatable precision.
And I scratch my head and say, "Who would have thunk it?"