
In parts 1 thru 3 we detailed how ocean currents warmed the Arctic, how more La Ninas were warming the oceans and affecting jet streams. Here I examine the dynamics that warm the land. Because the degree to which the earth’s surface is heated by the sun determines air temperatures, landscape changes like lost wetlands, deforestation, overgrazing and urbanization have all contributed significantly to warming since the Little Ice Age ended. Although most landscape changes are caused by humans, the intent here is show how landscape changes largely account for the land’s temperature trends that have been incorrectly blamed on rising CO2.
Jim Steele is Director emeritus of San Francisco State University’s Sierra Nevada Field Campus, authored Landscapes and Cycles: An Environmentalist’s Journey to Climate Skepticism, and proud member of the CO2 Coalition.
A transcript of this video maybe viewed below.
Read more: The Big 5 Natural Causes of Climate Change: part 4 Landscape ChangesBelow is the transcript to the video
The Big 5 Causes of Natural Climate Change part 4 Landscape Changes
available at https://youtu.be/ja6ZRgntPsg
Welcome everyone
This is part 4 of the big 5 natural causes of climate change. In parts one thru 3 we detailed how ocean currents warmed the Arctic, how more La Ninas were warming the oceans and affecting jet streams. Here I examine the dynamics that warm the land.
Although most landscape changes are caused by humans, the intent here is show how landscape changes largely account for the land’s temperature trends that have been incorrectly blamed on rising CO2.
Despite the cooler global average temperature, the earth’s highest recorded temperature, 56.7 Celsius or 134 Fahrenheit was set in California’s Death Valley in 1913, due to landscape features present in most desert ecosystems.
Less vegetation and bare desert soils heat surfaces to greater extremes. You have likely experienced a similar effect when walking barefoot in the summer on a cool grassy surface and then, stepped onto burning asphalt pavement.
Dry regions also produce fewer clouds allowing greater solar heating than elsewhere.
The same amount of energy can raise the temperatures of dry surfaces much more than moist surfaces. And dark soils, reflect less and so absorb more solar energy than other surfaces
Similarly, urban heat islands form in part because urban development has created desert-like conditions.
Because urban heat islands amplify every heat wave and set new records, people living in urban centers are more easily seduced into accepting climate crisis narratives than people living in cooler rural regions.

The temperature of the air is determined by the temperature of the earth’s surfaces.
1. The sun primarily heats the earth’s surface, not the air
2. The air then gets heated by contact with the earth’s heated surface.
And that warmed air rises and warms the atmosphere above
3. At higher altitudes, the rising air radiates heat back to space and cools and sinks back to the surface
Any large- or small-scale conversions of ecosystems from forests to grasslands or grasslands to deserts increases the earth’s skin surface temperatures.

With the advent of the satellite era, we now have global coverage of the earth’s skin surface. But skin surface temperatures can be as much as 30 degrees Celsius hotter than conventional air temperatures measured 5 feet above the surface. This map of the earth’s land surface maximum temperatures illustrates how solar heating and landscapes combine to determine skin temperatures
As expected, the coldest regions are at the poles represented in dark blue. But surprisingly for most people, the hottest maximum temperatures are not recorded at the equator, but elsewhere due to landscape effects.
This graph correlates the earth’s ecosystems with surface temperatures.

Forest ecosystems cover the greatest area. The northern forest across Canada and Eurasia experience maximum temperatures centered around 20 degrees Celsius or 68 degrees Fahrenheit and the equatorial forests reach maximums centered around 30 Celsius or about 86 Fahrenheit.
Grasslands typically experience higher maximum temperatures, spanning 30 to 50 degrees Celsius. The prairies of north America illustrated in yellow are warmer than north Americas eastern forests but cooler than the western deserts
The hottest maximum temperatures are recorded in the deserts spanning 45 to 70 degrees Celsius. Death Valley’s 56.7 Celsius record air temperature was observed in 1913. In 1922, 57.8 degrees Celsius was recorded in the desert of Libya breaking the Death Valley record.
However, because these extreme air temperatures happened 100 years ago and conflict with CO2 climate narratives, some researchers speculated that Libya’s temperature must have been incorrectly recorded, so successfully lobbied to remove it from the record books. There have been ongoing similar attempts to erase Death Valley’s record temperature. Clearly those who control the present narratives, control the past.
Now with satellites measuring skin surfaces, the record hottest skin surface temperature of 70.7 Celsius (about 160 Fahrenheit) was recorded in 2005 in Iran’s Lut Desert, but it’s not clear what the air temperature would have been.
The reason different ecosystems experience such different temperatures, even at the same latitude, is because of moisture.

The same amount of energy required to raise one gram of water one degree Celsius, measured here in joules, can also raise dry air by 4 degrees.
The same amount of energy that increases wet soil by one degree raises dry soil by 2 degrees
Likewise, that same amount of energy would raise asphalt by 2 degrees. In addition, asphalt and other dark surfaces absorb more energy.
Finally, 2200 times more energy is required to evaporate one gram of water without changing the temperature. Without moisture to evaporate, that energy instead causes surface temperatures to rise.

Any loss of vegetation, such as converting a forest ecosystem to an urban setting, will reduce evaporation and moisture, and thus generate heat islands.
Wetlands around the world have been increasingly drained and dried since global warming began in the 1800s.

In the 1800s California’s central valley was considered a marsh land represented by the yellows and greens. By the 1990s, over 90% of California’s wetlands were drained and dried. Irrigation has only partially offset the resulting warming effects
The most severe loss of wetlands in the United States are colored red. And the percentage of lost wetlands in each state is listed here.

California’s 91% loss was the greatest, but similar losses were observed in the Midwest from Iowa to Arkansas to Ohio. Florida only lost 46% of its wetlands but nearly 90% of the everglades.

Such losses were not confined to the USA. Globally 87% of surveyed wetlands have been lost since the 1700s. And that loss continues today.

Based on reconstruction of tree rings, there has been no change in the natural variations in rainfall, so increasing dryness has not been driven by human climate change. Griffin, in 2014, reconstructed rainfall patterns for the past 700 years from blue oak tree rings. The blue star and dashed line represent California’s extreme 2014 drought. The reconstruction revealed similar droughts happened about 3 times every century and some have been far worse than 2014, even during the colder Little Ice Age.

In addition to lost wetlands, degraded landscapes have reduced natural cooling that happens via transpiration. Over 60 to 80% of the globe’s dry lands have been degraded by deforestation and overgrazing.

As human populations expanded by 7-fold since 1800, the demand for wood for heating and buildings grew, causing the area of deforestation to double.
In 2021, researchers from the US Forest Service compared the effects of the 2021 heat wave on undisturbed forests versus deforested and degraded forests.
In west Oregon undisturbed forests were 5.5 degrees Celsius (or 10 degrees Fahrenheit) cooler. Likewise in Washington state, the degraded forest plantations were 4.5 degrees warmer.

Thus, researchers concluded, “the loss and degradation of primary forests was driving regional climate change and amplifying the severity of heat waves and droughts.
This graphic illustrates the regions where deforestation and forest fragmentation have taken the greatest toll. (rust colored). Between 2002 and 2020 as populations grew, China lost over 6% of its forests
Southeast Asia, largely in Malaysia and Indonesia, have lost huge swaths of forest because misguided politics are subsidizing biofuels and promoting deforestation to plant palm oil.

In contrast, Scandinavia exhibits no fragmentation and a growing forest, and it has not experienced global warming
By reconstructing temperatures using Scandinavian tree rings, Esper 2012 concluded temperatures have been declining for the past 2000 years. The 3 warmest 30-year periods happened during the Roman Warm Period 2000 years ago, and the Medieval Warm Period 1000 years ago. Both were warmer than the recent 30-year warm period between 1920 and 1940.

Overgrazing has likewise warmed the land’s surface skin temperatures. A 1994 study found overgrazed grasslands were 2 to 4 degrees Celsius warmer than well managed grasslands. and overgrazed north American grasslands were warming 63% faster than well managed grasslands.

The loss of grasslands in the 1930s contributed to the deadly Dust Bowl.
In contrast to the false narrative that global warming is causing more fires, more fires are, however, changing the landscapes, reducing transpiration, and warming the land. Southern California’s Malibu Canyon suffers 2 fires each decade as result of human ignitions.That has resulted in the loss of shrub lands, converting them into invasive grasslands that are both more easily ignited and increase skin surface warming

While studies show humans start over 84% of all wildfires, along California’s central and southern coasts, the growing human population has started 100% of the fires

To what degree these landscape changes bias the global average temperature upwards, depends on the proximity to any landscape changes, of the weather stations that contribute to that average,
As of 2011, the World Meteorological Organization oversees 11,119 weather stations, and to easily operate them these stations are associated with human habitat, not wilderness. The United States has the densest coverage and the most stations operating for 75 years or more (represented by red dots), the minimum time span needed to assess natural vs human climate changes.

For the rest of the globe, that coverage averages out to just one station for each area the size of the state of Connecticut. And that one weather station is assumed to represent all temperatures in the surrounding 5,000 square miles.
Urban areas represent less than 1% of the entire land surface of earth. However, 27% of the weather stations used to calculate climate change are in urban areas.
Urban heat islands are typically 2 to 3 degrees Celsius, or 5 to 6 degrees Fahrenheit, warmer than surrounding, well-vegetated suburban and rural regions. Urban heat islands are typically created by reducing vegetation and removing rainfall into storm drains while paving over moist soils and wetlands with asphalt and concrete.

Oddly, some studies, simply based on population size, argue rural and urban areas are equally warming and so blame rising temperatures on CO2. But those studies ignore the fact that even with smaller populations, rural areas are warming due to lost wetlands, deforestation, and overgrazing.
To robustly evaluate the warming effects of CO2, new studies must be done that account for the effects of those landscape changes,


These NASA photographs show the effect of urban centers versus more vegetated suburbs seen in green. The infrared photo shows the well vegetated suburbs are 10 degrees Celsius or 18 degrees Fahrenheit cooler
Again, it is no coincidence that it is typically urban dwellers suffering from urban heat islands who mistakenly support political parties that push a global warming climate crisis.
In addition to adding more vegetation, one solution to reduce urban heat islands, requires converting dark rooftops to white roof tops

Dark roofs absorb 16 times more heat than white surfaces. And hotter roofs generate hotter buildings
Dark roofs heat the atmosphere 4 times more than white surfaces Additionally hotter buildings emit more heat through the night increasing the nighttime minimum temperatures.
In 1988, Thomas Karl, who later became director of the National Climatic Data Center, published research showing that as an urban center’s population increased, so did the early morning minimum temperatures, but not maximum temperatures

In a town of 10,000 people, the minimum temperature increased twice as much as a small-town of 2000 people. In a city of one million people, the minimum temperature increased 15 times more than the small town.
And although maximum temperatures decreased, the city’s average temperature still increased 15 times more than the small town. As cities grow the altered landscape, added buildings, and streets of asphalt will store more daytime heat, which is then slowly released at night, and that best explains the asymmetric temperature trends.
Trying to evaluate how temperatures were affecting Sierra Nevada wildlife, I examined the temperature data from the nearest us historical climate network station in Tahoe City. Unexpectedly, but like Karl’s study, I found the maximum temperatures were highest in the 1930s and have been cooling since But minimum temperatures had been rising.

The Sierra Nevada was not getting hotter. Surfaces were just cooling less by early morning
Unfortunately, the commonly paraded temperature trends only present the average of the maximum and minimum and that misleading statistic hides the grossly different temperature dynamics.

Minimum temperatures are more sensitive than maximums to surface changes due to differences in daytime and nighttime convection. Solar heating during the day generates robust convection that carries heat away from the surface and upwards, to mix with cooler air above.
During the night, convection is greatly reduced so that air warmed at the surface is not diluted by mixing with cooler air above. Inversion layers often form that can trap heat, even preventing smoke from rising.

In 2013 I published this graph in my book of temperatures in Death Valley, from data supplied by the us historical climate network. The climate trends were very similar to that observed in the Tahoe City data and elsewhere in California, with the maximum temperatures peaking in the 1930s.
Death Valley’s weather station shows it was sited in a more natural landscape in 1913 when its record maximum temperature was recorded, even though minimum temperatures were much lower.

As meteorologist Anthony Watts and his Surface Station surveys have revealed, even Death Valley has been affected by landscape changes. As Death Valley became a National Park and popular tourist spot, a visitor’s center and several RV parks were added around the weather station. The observed rise in minimum temperature is again consistent with those land surface changes.

Death Valley is also a symbol of how fragile our temperature data has become as politics can outweigh science. The data I published had been previously adjusted for any known errors.
It was consistent with California’s regional climate trends observed in Tahoe city and Yosemite national park as well as other stations around the country.

Peak maximum temperatures were consistent with the EPA’s heat wave index that also peaked in the 1930s.

But in 2014, I got an email accusing me of misrepresenting the Death Valley data. When I checked, I found Death Valley’s data had been adjusted once again, and this time the 1930s warm peak was squashed
And Death Valley’s temperature trend was now structured to align with the current CO2 global warming narratives.

Clearly those who control the present, control the past.
Up next: part 5 of the big 5 natural causes of climate change: clouds . Until then…. Embrace renowned scientist Thomas Huxley’s advice….
Skepticism is our highest of duties and blind faith the one unpardonable sin!
Dr. Jim Steele has created the most comprehensive and devastating series of science based videos that totally destroy the CO2 drives warming theory that I’ve seen. Most importantly he address how CO2 won’t warm the oceans, and as I’ve always said, if you can’t explain how CO2 warms the oceans, you can’t blame CO2. His video series is game over for CAGW.
https://youtu.be/kQbSplM6o9Y
https://youtu.be/I4_DjeCsgWk
https://youtu.be/HXg5UCRPJJ4
https://youtu.be/ja6ZRgntPsg
With all the money being spent on climate studies, you would think real scientists would have developed hypothesis, math, and experiments with physical measurements to prove/disprove what CO2 does to the ocean. The lack is prima facie evidence that climate scientists referenced by MGC are not interested in real science.
A lot of the measurement data that Gorman claims “does not exist”, actually does.
Your claim is dead on arrival since you didn’t begin to factually address Gorman’s claim.
Where is it, MGC?
Don’t claim something you can’t prove. That’s an Appeal to Authority debate fallacy and would disqualify your argument in any high school debate.
Jim Steel puts out believable assertions because he has studied the earth and its phenomena. You’ll notice he does not hide behind an anonymous name. He also doesn’t just quote the titles of studies but in most cases shows the data and conclusions from the studies.
You are fast approaching the status of “don’t bother reading” because of your ad homs and unbelievable assertions. Keep up the good work.
re: “you would think real scientists would have developed … measurements to prove/disprove what CO2 does to the ocean.”
Let’s see now, they only have a huge network of 4000 Argo floats that measure ocean temperatures, salinity, and currents on a three dimensional basis all over the world; from that data they also have information on changes of global ocean heat content in response to CO2 changes.
They have decades of measurements of the increasing CO2 content of the oceans (because of human emissions) and the changes in ocean pH that results from increasing CO2 levels.
They have decades of worldwide tidal gauge data and satellite measurements of the changing sea levels.
They have NASA’s Orbiting Carbon Observatory, which now tells us not only how much human fossil fuel driven CO2 is accumulating in the oceans, but exactly where and when CO2 is both entering and leaving the oceans.
This is all strong “prima facie evidence” that Gorman claims “doesn’t exist”.
As you say, Gorman: “don’t claim something you can’t prove”.
And just how much temperature rise has been seen in the oceans? I know you have been supplied this figure before. Show us you read the replies in other threads showing what the rise is.
Tell everyone what the TEMPERATURE rise has been in the world’s oceans.
Yes, this was discussed previously Gorman. And yes, I supplied a number.
And in that previous discussion, you were also asked: “if the heat content that has been absorbed into the oceans over the past few decades were released to the atmosphere, how much would the atmosphere warm?”
But you never answered that question. Why? Because you know that it is a very large number, but don’t want to admit it.
Not to mention that you don’t actually even know how to do that calculation, LOL.
But this is all just a distraction away from the fact that in speaking about oceans and CO2, Gorman claimed a “lack of prima facie evidence”, a claim that was so easily shown to be ridiculously false.
Another Appeal to Authority by the wanna be debater. 🤡💩
Aren’t you getting tired of failing to win an argument?
There was no such “Appeal to Authority”. This claim is a ridiculous non-sequitur.
“A lack of prima facie evidence” was also proven false.
And Gorman still hasn’t answered the heat content question posed above. And we know exactly why.
From you in this comment thread.
(bold by me)
Maybe you don’t understand pronouns!
As to my ability to calculate the temperature rise from some number of zetajoules you are sadly mistaken. Just another ad hominem attack which would disqualify you in a high school debate. Keep on losing your arguments dude! Too bad you never learned how to win an argument.
Gorman says: “As to my ability to calculate the temperature rise from some number of zetajoules you are sadly mistaken”
If so, then do the calculation, show your work and the answer.
Prove me wrong.
You’ve provided zero evidence as of yet of any such ability.
In regards to the challenge to calculate the temperature change in the Earth’s atmosphere for a given energy input:
It must be nice to be so ignorant of thermodynamics to think this is a trivial problem.
Sure, you can parameterize it and claim the calculation is easy or call it ‘grade school arithmetic’.
However, if one is interested to reduce ignorance – consider the following (please excuse the requirement to invoke second law).
One framework to understand the implications of thermodynamics is to consider the effects of the unsteady mechanical efficiency of the climate system in response to an energy input (or supposed energy imbalance).
Of course, the atmosphere acts nothing like a static blanket concept taught to children.
The mechanical efficiency refers to the efficiency with which the climate system generates and dissipates kinetic energy in air circulation.
For example, dry convection has a substantially higher mechanical efficiency compared to moist convection. I tried to bring this up a few days ago but nobody would take the bait.
The implications of the smaller mechanical efficiency of moist convection are profound. For example, a significant positive water vapor feedback seems improbable.
This is not adequately characterized in radiative-convective equilibrium schemes to date. It can only be parameterized.
Irreversible entropy production associated with water in all its phases in the atmosphere must be accounted for. Not trivial!!
This complexity is inconvenient for energy budgets.
Thermodynamic action of atmospheric convection is to transport heat vertically in the atmosphere, but also to dehumidify the atmosphere.
These two thermodynamic operations are in competition with each other, such that the dehumidification process reduces the work available for the atmosphere.
Work represents a conversion between kinetic energy, internal energy, and potential energy within the climate system. This matters for a temperature calculation, of course!
The magnitude of the reduction in available work (exergy) associated with dehumidification depends on the relative magnitude of latent heat transport compared to sensible heat transport.
This has direct implications for calculating a change in temperature. It depends on many factors from surface properties to the spatial distribution of vapor pressure deficits, to dynamic cloud density and distribution.
Thus, in the climate system the energy budgets are not so simple as advertised.
In other words, the research frontier in climate science is rich with fascinating, and complex problems.
Many wish to deny this. Authors trying to publish on these concepts are facing great resistance by consensus defenders.
Excellent description of just part of the entire climate system. It is why so many climate scientists use correlations as PROOF. CO2 may have a part to play but it is difficult to determine adequately from a math standpoint and I have seen nothing to show any work on the issue.
Cheers. Very basic questions remain controversial, such as maximum or minimium entropy production in open thermodynamic systems. It is wise to return to thinking again in terms of ‘simple’ laws which control the mean system.
Monte Hall says
“MGC, Let’s Make A Deal!. You have your choice between:
1- decades of scientific evidence published in the most prestigious scientific journals in the whole world, or
2- A few youtube videos that have never been formally reviewed for scientific accuracy.”
MGC: “Monte, I’ll take door number one, please.”
What you really meant is that you can’t counter the video’s you never viewed which explains why you remain ignorant and stupid.
re: “ignorant and stupid” ?
who is trolling who now, tommy?
Did you watch the videos you categorically disputed without showing evidence that you watched them….., of course you didn’t
quoting YOU:
That is why I am posting to show that you are clearly bigoted about videos you didn’t watch.
Your consensus claim is useless Reproducible research is far better.
MGC, like many, has confused academia for scientific inquiry. For, to them, there can be no discussion of ideas without formal peer review of each item. Brain dead and anti-science. Having no idea what science is.
DOn’t take my word for it https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dGDbpg1nG8Y&ab_channel=SellaOmmekeer
It is definitely not trolling MGC, when its so true. Besides, just calling you “ignorant and stupid” is being kind. He didnt mention dishonest slime ball!
Yet another Jim Steele comment devoid of any content other than ad hominem attacks.
Dr. Steele’s video series is simply outstanding and demonstrates a level of understanding far above anything I’ve see elsewhere. I’m not a Climate Scientist, but have a great deal of experience in the Sciences and Multi-Variable Modeling and he hits on many of the issues I’ve seen ignores by others. I would suggest that Dr. Steele consider these topics for future videos.
CO2 –> “The relationship between CO2 and Temperature isn’t Temp = f(CO2), it is Temp = f(Log(CO2))”
It is not even Temp=f(Log(CO2)). It is
f(CO2, WV, Clouds, tilt of earth, a, b, c, …)
Jim, true, but I specifically stated the relationship between CO2 and Temperature, I didn’t detail all the factors that impact temperature.
You could use your format if you declare all other variables are constant, but, and it’s a BIG BUT, they are not constant and they are many.
Please don’t encourage the CAGW folks by showing that CO2 is what causes temperature.
This analysis adds to the claim that animal agriculture has become a big contributor to environmental changes and woes. Because of the massive landscape and ecosystem changes involved.
When all is said and done, MGC suggests….
”1- human fossil fuel emissions are the dominant driver of present day climate changes.”
AAAAAAAAAAAha ha ha ha ha ha ha. Bless your little heart.
Define ”climate” MGC
Then, define ”climate change” MGC
Take your time. I’ll wait……
Dear Jim,
I’m looking forward to reading and watching the rest of the series, and to checking out your book.
I finally understand why Tony Heller uses daily maximum temperatures in his analyses, rather than averages.
Have you ever met Tony?
Thanks,
George
Not yet, but I hope to. He has been the master of retrieving past documentary evidence that negates alarmist claims. He recently joined the CO2 Coaltion.
The Sun does heat the atmosphere, water vapour absorbs about 16% of the total solar heating effect, in the near infrared. So regions with less water vapour, like the horse latitudes where most deserts are, receive more surface heating from the Sun.