New Research Showing U.S. Warming is Exaggerated by 50 Percent

Originally posted on Climate Realism

By Linnea Lueken

A recent post from The Daily Sceptic describes new research conducted by scientists seeking to accurately determine U.S. surface temperatures after the influence of the urban heat island effect is removed. The results revealed that the eastern United States has experienced 50 percent less warming over the last 50 years than official records indicate. This important research confirms what The Heartland Institute’s recent report, “Corrupted Climate Stations: The Official U.S. Surface Temperature Record Remains Fatally Flawed,” found that official National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) temperature stations produce corrupted data due to their location in man-made hot spots.

The Daily Sceptic article, titled “U.S. Warming Over Last 50 Years Exaggerated by Up to 50%, New Evidence Shows,” describes research produced by atmospheric scientists Roy Spencer, Ph.D. and Professor John Christy, Ph.D., of the University of Alabama at Huntsville. The link to the original post by Spencer describing their reasoning for undertaking the project and what methods they used can be found at his website, here.

Describing the work, Chris Morrison of The Daily Sceptic writes the “research attempts to remove distortions caused by increasing urban heat and uses human-made structure density data over 50 years supplied by the Landsat satellites.

The scientists first worked to determine the magnitude of the impact that cities and associated structures—like concrete and metal—have on local warming that is then measured by weather stations. The localized warming caused by urban environments is called the “Urban Heat Island” (UHI) effect. The UHI and has long been cited as a possible explanation for some of the differences between ground-based and satellite-based temperature readings.

Climate Realism has likewise pointed out this issue, in posts like “Checking the Science Focus ‘Reality Check’ – Ignoring UHI is Foolish,” by meteorologist Anthony Watts.

Using datasets that quantify manmade structure densities from the EU’s European Commission Global Human Settlement Layer project, as well as hourly-reporting weather station temperature data, the scientists were able to eventually create a regression-based algorithm to remove the urban heat bias. After the algorithm was applied to temperature station data across 37 eastern states, the measured warming appeared as significantly less than the temperatures reported by NOAA.

Commenting on the report at his blog, Spencer writes, “[t]he results for the eastern U.S. lead to a 50-year warming trend 50 percent less than that from the official NOAA homogenized surface temperature dataset.” (See the figure below).

This finding is critical in determining whether the world faces a climate crisis that justifies sharp restrictions on fossil fuel use.

Morrison opines that this kind of research will likely not be presented at the COP27 Climate Conference. He writes that “every warning of future temperature rise will reference the politically-correct surface datasets, and every forecast of climate thermogeddon will incant the authority of climate models.”

Sadly, Morrison will almost certainly be proven correct in that prediction. Morrison and The Daily Sceptic should be applauded for covering this important study, which is being ignored by the mainstream media. It shows that the data being used to demonstrate global warming is grossly compromised, overstating warming by a substantial amount. Urbanization must be accounted for. It cannot be ignored or “homogenized” away. Temperature bias from the UHI must be weeded out if we are to base our climate policies on an accurate assessment of the state of the planet. Research like that conducted by Spencer and Christy is a vital–if unsung—tool for determining the true extent of climate change.

5 29 votes
Article Rating
88 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
November 8, 2022 2:08 pm

Even with the corrupted, altered, fabricated surface temperature data, the last 7 seven years shows a very slight linear cooling trend — and so does the UAH satellite data. CO2 is underperforming — again.

Geoff Sherrington
Reply to  John Shewchuk
November 8, 2022 2:34 pm

JS,
The UAH record shows cooling for the last 10 years 4 months for the LT over Australia. Geoff S
http://www.geoffstuff.com/uahnov.jpg

Reply to  Geoff Sherrington
November 8, 2022 3:02 pm

Good to know.

Richard Greene
Reply to  John Shewchuk
November 9, 2022 1:56 am

UAH has no global warming for 8 years and 1 month, according to Monckton.

November 8, 2022 2:15 pm

These are early morning temperatures. Spencer is yet to release this estimate on peak and average temperatures.

AlanJ
November 8, 2022 2:18 pm

Perhaps I am missing the point of Spencer’s research, here, but why do we want to remove all urbanization from surface temperature records? Isn’t that an important signal to capture? I think the issue that scientists want to avoid is oversampling urban areas in surface temperature analyses.

Chris Norman
Reply to  AlanJ
November 8, 2022 2:44 pm

If you use pristine stations as USCRN does, those stations will pick up the effect that heat islands have. The heat islands themselves reveal nothing global.

Reply to  Chris Norman
November 8, 2022 3:15 pm

“If you use pristine stations as USCRN does, those stations will pick up the effect that heat islands have”
Yes, they do. Here, from the the NOAA Temperature Index page, is the comparison of the USCRN average with the NOAA ClimDiv average that Dr Spencer says warms too much. Sorry it’s hard to see the difference; the results are actually exactly the same. That is the effect. 

comment image

Last edited 2 months ago by Nick Stokes
bnice2000
Reply to  Nick Stokes
November 8, 2022 4:26 pm

LOL..

Gees Nick, Wouldn’t NOAA look pretty stupid if they used their old methods and the ClimDiv data diverged from USCRN

What is actually happening is the USCRN has brought the data manipulation and fabricated warming under control.

ClimDiv cannot be allowed to diverge from USCRN..

… so it is being put together so that it doesn’t.

As you can see, basically no warming since 2005

A slight linear trend caused by the bulge from the 2015/16 El Nino.

Nick Stokes
Reply to  bnice2000
November 8, 2022 6:04 pm

so it is being put together so that it doesn’t”
So when Roy says that ClimDiv is 50% too high because of UHI…
and ClimDiv is just shadowing USCRN…
so USCRN is 50% too high because of UHI???

pillageidiot
Reply to  Nick Stokes
November 8, 2022 7:15 pm

Roy is using 1973-2022.

Your chart is 2005-2022 and USCRN wasn’t complete until 2008.

So your chart does NOT show that ClimDiv is just shadowing USCRN over the time period of Roy’s study.

Nick Stokes
Reply to  pillageidiot
November 8, 2022 7:35 pm

If there is UHI, it was surely operating 2005-2022. Yet ClimDiv is in very good agreement with USCRN. There is no room for a big UHI effect there.

markx
Reply to  Nick Stokes
November 9, 2022 12:19 am

If there is UHI

Nick,

Surely you agree UHI is real?

Conclusions

The study has verified the existence of urban heat island effect in the present context of Singapore. The CBD area showed the highest temperatures. The maximum temperature difference of 4 °C was observed between the vegetated area and the CBD area. A comprehensive assessment was carried out to identify the potential causes of this effect by exploring how the heat extraction rate can be improved by optimizing air flow.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0038092X08000364

AlanJ
Reply to  Nick Stokes
November 9, 2022 5:08 am

Isn’t ClimDiv adjusted for urbanization bias? I think the fact that it’s perfectly consistent with the CRN means that the adjustments are working well – i.e. the potential for UHI has already been dealt with. There probably would be more of an urban bias if you didn’t do any adjustment at all (but I’m very skeptical it is as large as Roy suggests).

Reply to  Nick Stokes
November 8, 2022 8:13 pm

Nich claims about Dr Spencer that –
So when Roy says that ClimDiv is 50% too high because of UHI…”
Roy does not say that. He writes that he has started work on an idea, using tempeatures at 9 o’clock UTC for stated reasons. He explicitly notes that “The results for the eastern U.S. lead to a 50-year warming trend 50% less than that from the official NOAA homogenized surface temperature dataset. It is likely that the daytime reductions in temperature trends will be less dramatic.”
That quote is from the third sentence in his essay, not hard to miss when mathematicians should be able to count to three.
Also, if you do the algebra, a number 50% less, when viewed the other way, equated to an increase of 100%, not your claimed 50% too high. Simple math error.
An apology for misrepresenting would be polite. Geoff S

Nick Stokes
Reply to  Geoff Sherrington
November 8, 2022 10:15 pm

Geoff,
not hard to miss when mathematicians should be able to count to three”
There are actually three kinds of mathematician – those that can count, and those that can’t. They all contribute 🙂

“An apology for misrepresenting would be polite.”
So what is the headline of this article?
“New Research Showing U.S. Warming is Exaggerated by 50 Percent”
It quotes:
 Spencer writes, “[t]he results for the eastern U.S. lead to a 50-year warming trend 50 percent less than that from the official NOAA homogenized surface temperature dataset.” (See the figure below).”
The figure says nothing about it being 9am temperature. Neither, AFAICS, does the article. Anywhere.

So I don’t think it is I who should apologise.

Reply to  Nick Stokes
November 9, 2022 2:26 am

Nick,
Having dealt with sentence 3 from Dr Spencer’s paper, we now turn to sentence two.
A method is presented to compute the magnitude of the Urban Heat Island (UHI) effect on temperatures using the example of summertime 09 UTC (early morning) Integrated Surface Database (ISD) hourly data (mostly from airports) over the period 1973-2022 by comparing urbanization differences to temperature differences from closely-spaced weather stations.”
Just above, you wrote: “The figure says nothing about it being 9am temperature. Neither, AFAICS, does the article. Anywhere.”
Have you made another mistake?
Do we need an apology even more?
Geoff S

Nick Stokes
Reply to  Geoff Sherrington
November 9, 2022 4:04 pm

Geoff,
Roy’s paper said all that. But it was left out of this WUWT article that we are commenting on. Including the figure. Nor does the 9am restriction, and his acknowledgement that the whole day average would show less effect, appear in any of the other publicity. That is where apology is required. It is misleading.

Reply to  Nick Stokes
November 9, 2022 4:40 pm

Nick,
An apology from you is appropriate, because you misled readers here into thinking Dr Spencer did not write something that he did write. The mistake was yours for quoting from a secondary, derived article (and not stating your source) instead of quoting from the primary, original article by Dr Spencer.
This is pretty serious misrepresentation.
Geoff S

Nick Stokes
Reply to  Geoff Sherrington
November 9, 2022 6:17 pm

secondary, derived article (and not stating your source)”
??? The article is this very WUWT article that we are commenting on. What I said Roy said is an almost exact paraphrase of the heading of the article. And the article said he said it too.

Richard Greene
Reply to  bnice2000
November 9, 2022 2:04 am

How can we be sure USCRN is accurate.
Because NOAA says so?
That does not convince me.

Nick Stokes
Reply to  Richard Greene
November 9, 2022 4:06 pm

USCRN sites are basically located on a grid over the USA, not near population centers. So they should have only the UHI that is representative for the whole space.

But good evidence for the accuracy is the closeness between USCRN and ClimDiv. They couldn’t both be wrong in exactly the same way.

Richard Greene
Reply to  Nick Stokes
November 9, 2022 1:57 am

” the results are actually exactly the same”

If a pristine, properly sited USCRN weather station network is so close to another network that does not meet siting standards (Anthony Watts study), then I am suspicious: Has NOAA has deliberately made all their numbers very similar?

That would be sleazy science because NOAA never revealed if they have, or have not, done that. That the two networks are so similar is not a coincidence, in my opinion.

Last edited 2 months ago by Richard Greene
Nick Stokes
Reply to  Richard Greene
November 9, 2022 4:09 pm

I’m sure not. Apart from anything else, hundreds of ordinary citizens would have to be in on such a conspiracy.

But both station sets post their data continuously, at least hourly. Pretty hard to manipulate that.

Jim Gorman
Reply to  Nick Stokes
November 10, 2022 6:19 am

Are you claiming that no homogenizing goes on in either database? Or, is some average computed from the recorded temperatures being homogenized without actually changing the recorded data?

Geoff Sherrington
Reply to  AlanJ
November 8, 2022 2:52 pm

AlanJ,
Yes, you are missing the point.
The official global warming attack on public perception is that CO2 in the earth’s air is increasing, causing an increase in global temperature that has to be be stopped to avoid an existential crisis.
Apart from satellite measurements like RSS and UAH, the estimate of temperature change is built upon observations from near-surface-based thermometers. Those in and over oceans are not expected to show a UHI. Those on land do show a UHI effect.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/12/20/the-science-of-the-urban-heat-island-effect-is-pathetic-and-misleading/

For understandable reasons, thermometers observed manually each day tend to be close to where people live. Those close to where many people live have measured, large UHI effects. The vast, uninhabited areas between habitation are scarcely observed, so there is a bias introduced into the estimates of global temperatures. It is known to be large enough to require correction, but ways to correct it have not been satisfactory to date..
The official narrative is based on data with known errors, with mention of this error usually left out of the narrative.
Dr Spencer has proposed a way to reduce this known error.

That should be applauded and assisted.

I am quite happy to assist Dr Spencer with data from Australia if it would be useful. Historic temperature data here is of mixed quality and it helps to have someone who knows how to tiptoe through the tulips.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2022/10/14/uncertainty-of-measurement-of-routine-temperatures-part-iii/

Australia has better than usual historic coverage and many records going back before year 1900. In contrast to USA48, where Dr Spencer has studied UHI, there are many locations that are so isolated that UHI is unlikely to have been produced. This is not the case with USA, where most stations are likely to be affected, making study more difficult.

Geoff S

AlanJ
Reply to  Geoff Sherrington
November 8, 2022 3:06 pm

Urbanization produces a bias in surface temperature indexes that needs to be adjusted for (and in fact all of the major orgs producing temp indexes account for this), but the goal shouldn’t be to eliminate urban warming entirely, since it is a real signal in surface temperature data.

Last edited 2 months ago by AlanJ
Geoff Sherrington
Reply to  AlanJ
November 8, 2022 3:47 pm

AlanJ,
Precisely where did I propose to eliminate UHI entirely?
Sheesh, you guys know how to make stuff up.
Are you qualified to comment on scientific matters?
Geoff S

bnice2000
Reply to  AlanJ
November 8, 2022 4:35 pm

“since it is a real signal in surface temperature data.”

Urban areas actually occupy a very small surface of most countries, yet that is where most surface temperatures are measured and “homogenised/smeared” from

Last edited 2 months ago by bnice2000
Tim Gorman
Reply to  AlanJ
November 9, 2022 4:04 am

It is a real signal for sure. But is it a *real* component of global average temperature? Is it just a bias in the surface temperature data that should be removed? How is it different from calibration drift in a temperature measuring station?

AlanJ
Reply to  Tim Gorman
November 9, 2022 4:55 am

It is certainly a real component of the global average surface temperature. Not a very big one, but it should not simply be removed. That’s my reading of Roy’s post – he’s proposing a method of simply removing the trend altogether.

Martin Zumstein
Reply to  AlanJ
November 8, 2022 2:56 pm

We need the global average temperature. Weather stations tend to be in inhabited areas. This gives a bias.

Richard Greene
Reply to  Martin Zumstein
November 9, 2022 3:46 am

A good bias.
People are affected by local temperatures where they live and work
They are not much affected by temperatures in the middle of nowhere, or in the middle of the oceans.

Richard M
Reply to  AlanJ
November 8, 2022 2:57 pm

Read the paper. It is the bias that these stations insert into the gridded data that leads to an overheated warming trend.

AlanJ
Reply to  Richard M
November 8, 2022 3:05 pm

Urban warming is real warming, and should not be omitted from surface temperature indexes. The issue is not that we want to eliminate urban warming from urban stations, it’s that we don’t want to oversample urban warming in areas where urbanization is not as pronounced, and those areas might be represented by stations in urbanized areas. My reading of Dr. Spencer’s work is that he has (purportedly) found a way to completely remove urbanization from urban station records. This might be a useful exercise if your goal is to explore what a world without cities might look like, but it is not useful if your goal is to understand how surface temperatures are changing.

starzmom
Reply to  AlanJ
November 8, 2022 3:41 pm

While I agree that urban warming is real warming, I think the pertinent point is that it is not warming caused by carbon dioxide, no matter how you slice it, and reducing CO2 emissions, if they have any effect at all, definitely have no effect on urban heat islands. If you want to figure out how much impact CO2 and reductions in CO2 will have on temperatures, you need to know what environmental components contribute to observed temperatures, and remove unrelated influences.

AlanJ
Reply to  starzmom
November 9, 2022 4:59 am

The goal of constructing a global temperature index isn’t to filter it to just change caused by CO2, the goal is just to… get a global temperature index. Then comes the part where you figure out what is causing the changes that you see.

MarkH
Reply to  AlanJ
November 8, 2022 4:24 pm

If those urban temperatures are used as inputs to “homogenized” temperatures over much broader areas, you end up with an overestimate of the broader temperature.

For example, if I was to try and measure the average temperature of a bath tub full of cool water by placing thermometers in 10 locations, but 6 of these locations were inhabited by floating bowls of warm water (urban heat islands), the calculation of the average temperature would be incorrectly skewed. The effect on the regional climate of urban heat islands is small and the effect on the global climate from urban heat islands is insignificant (the world is big, and cities are a very small fraction of its area). In calculating the broader temperature, the effects of urban heat islands need to be corrected for, not incorporated.

AlanJ
Reply to  MarkH
November 9, 2022 5:00 am

If those urban temperatures are used as inputs to “homogenized” temperatures over much broader areas, you end up with an overestimate of the broader temperature.

Not if you employ a homogenization procedure.

Last edited 2 months ago by AlanJ
Janice Moore
Reply to  AlanJ
November 9, 2022 10:16 am

As Chris Hanley points out below, see the last paragraph of the article:

Urbanization must be accounted for. It cannot be ignored or “homogenized” away.

Temperature bias from the UHI must be weeded out if we are to base our climate policies on an accurate assessment of the state of the planet.

bnice2000
Reply to  AlanJ
November 8, 2022 5:01 pm

As I said above Urban areas actually occupy a very small percentage surface area of most countries, yet that is where most surface temperatures are measured and “homogenised/smeared” from.

I suspect Roy has not removed enough of the urban effect to actually find what is happening to the real global temperature.

Reply to  AlanJ
November 8, 2022 10:10 pm

Alan J,
If you lit fires under thermometer screens before making observations, you could call that real warming also, but it would not be helpful in working out what is happening in the natural world. Geoff S

Richard Greene
Reply to  Geoff Sherrington
November 9, 2022 2:09 am

Don’t give the Climate Howlers any ideas !

AlanJ
Reply to  Geoff Sherrington
November 9, 2022 5:02 am

The aim isn’t to figure out what is happening in the “natural world,” it is to figure out what is happening in the world at large. If you lit a fire under the screens and kept it burning for decades you’d have a very tricky problem indeed, but that is not the situation that we find ourselves in.

Reply to  AlanJ
November 9, 2022 4:20 pm

AlanJ,
It is precisely the situation we have now, when you replace the easy-to-understand fire under the screen with the actual warmth pervading cities from UHI.
It is the same concept, different distribution and scale.
Geoff S

Tim Gorman
Reply to  Geoff Sherrington
November 10, 2022 5:29 am

I’ll repeat what I said elsewhere. If there is an obvious bias in the data and you don’t remove it then how do you determine if you are acting on the bias or on the base problem? If the temperature is biased by UHI then shouldn’t we be acting on the UHI and not on the unbiased temperature? It’s likely two different prescriptions would result.

jeffery p
Reply to  AlanJ
November 8, 2022 2:58 pm

Because urbanization has nothing to do with alleged “carbon” pollution or net zero. We are supposed to transform our civilization because fossil fuels are causing a climate crisis.

AlanJ
Reply to  jeffery p
November 8, 2022 3:05 pm

We don’t consider causality when computing surface temp indexes.

starzmom
Reply to  AlanJ
November 8, 2022 3:43 pm

But we consider causality when we decide to change our entire economy to change surface temperatures. It would be helpful to know ahead of time if the exercise will accomplish the goal, before we launch into such a transformation.

Richard Greene
Reply to  jeffery p
November 9, 2022 2:12 am

Past global average temperature trends have little correlation to predicted CAGW, which is allegedly much faster than past global warming, and claimed to be dangerous, when past global warming was pleasant and harmless. If we had perfect historical temperature data, the Climate Howlers would STILL be predicting a coming climate crisis !

Chris Hanley
Reply to  AlanJ
November 8, 2022 3:00 pm

The answer to those questions is in the last paragraph of the above article.

Reply to  AlanJ
November 8, 2022 3:18 pm

Perhaps I am missing the point of Spencer’s research, here, but why do we want to remove all urbanization from surface temperature records? Isn’t that an important signal to capture? I think the issue that scientists want to avoid is oversampling urban areas in surface temperature analyses.”

Well put. The first requirement is to measure the temperature however caused. You can’t measure anything else. Then you can argue about causes. Over-sampling could be a problem, but doesn’t seem to be.

MarkW2
Reply to  Nick Stokes
November 8, 2022 3:34 pm

Well, Nick, that would make complete sense IF the climate science community and politicians could be trusted to ensure this point was properly taken on board and communicated. In reality — and this is an appalling situation — this would be unlikely to happen.

So, why don’t you take a lead on this and do a round of media interviews making this very point? Science would be the beneficiary and, surely, that is what really matters. Or does it?

Nick Stokes
Reply to  MarkW2
November 8, 2022 4:07 pm

“So, why don’t you take a lead on this and do a round of media interviews making this very point?”

I run a blog, and post the monthly global average surface temperature anomaly, calculated from ERSST and unadjusted land temperatures. October is already out; it is here (it was up by 0.094°C on September). GISS results come out later, but are usually much the same.

bnice2000
Reply to  Nick Stokes
November 8, 2022 4:30 pm

Land temperature contain a LOT of urban warming.

They are sparse, erratically space and very often highly tainted by other influences.

Thus, the data produced is meaningless as a global trend measurement.

bnice2000
Reply to  Nick Stokes
November 8, 2022 4:28 pm

“The first requirement is to measure the temperature however caused.”

Ahhh…. so you admit that there is whole heap of urban warming in the surface data fabrications.

Nick Stokes
Reply to  bnice2000
November 8, 2022 4:49 pm

I said that oversampling doesn’t seem to be a problem. Evidence of that is in my graph above, where USCRN (free of UHI) is shown to give the same result as NOAA ClimDiv, derived from their full range of allegedly corrupted stations.

bnice2000
Reply to  Nick Stokes
November 8, 2022 5:04 pm

LOL.. You know that ClimDiv is being made to follow USCRN, don’t you

I didn’t think even you were so naive to not see that. !

USCRN is controlling the data manipulation.

Funny that USCRN stopped the USA warming (except for the 2015/16 El Nino bulge). 😉

Last edited 2 months ago by bnice2000
Nick Stokes
Reply to  bnice2000
November 8, 2022 6:00 pm

You know that ClimDiv is being made to follow USCRN, don’t you”

“Funny that USCRN stopped the USA warming”

Funny the way these conspiracy theories make no sense. So NOAA rigged it do ensure no warming?

But the conspiracy also makes no sense with this post. Roy says that ClimDiv is 50% too high because of UHI. But it’s the same numbers as USCRN. So now we’re supposed to believe that USCRN is 50% too high because of UHI.

Richard Greene
Reply to  bnice2000
November 9, 2022 2:17 am

Let’s not jump to the conclusion that USCRN is accurate simply because NOAA ays so.

Richard Greene
Reply to  bnice2000
November 9, 2022 2:15 am

No one knows how much the changes in the UHI effect have affected the trend of global warming over the past 100 years.

It is NOT UHI that is important. It is CHANGES in UHI over time that affect some land-based weather stations.

Last edited 2 months ago by Richard Greene
Tim Gorman
Reply to  Nick Stokes
November 9, 2022 4:00 am

“The first requirement is to measure the temperature however caused. ”

If you don’t isolate the UHI then how do you know if the treatment you apply (i.e. killing fossil fuels) is appropriate or even worthwhile? Perhaps the treatment should be to force people to leave the cities and spread over wider areas! The issue may be population density and not CO2 emissions.

You *can* measure the temperature appropriately. The cause of the temperature *is* important. You just have to be willing to try – which apparently most climate scientists aren’t willing to do.

If Happer et al are correct and CO2 is becoming saturated *and* we continue to see increased warming then the astute researcher will ask why that is so – and not just dismiss the saturation theory out of hand. There may be lots of other causes, including UHI.

Last edited 2 months ago by Tim Gorman
Geoff Sherrington
November 8, 2022 2:32 pm

Official Australian estimates of warming are also about double what we see by detailed analysis of the historic record. “Australia’s climate has warmed on average by 1.44 ± 0.24 °C since national records began in 1910, leading to an increase in the frequency of extreme heat events.”
http://www.bom.gov.au/state-of-the-climate/

This contrary view is from colleague Chris Gillham.There is more on his web hosting page waclimate.

http://www.waclimate.net/year-book-csir.html

http://www.waclimate.net/temperature-deciles-1800s.html

Importantly, these reduced warming rates are not directly attributed to UHI effects. They arise from separate causes. If UHI is included, the result can only be even less warming than the official estimates. The official estimates have been affected by subjective adjustments that do not stand up to dispassionate analysis of the numbers.

Geoff S

jeffery p
Reply to  Geoff Sherrington
November 8, 2022 3:00 pm

Wasn’t the study done using Landsat data? Does that exist for Australia as well?

Reply to  jeffery p
November 8, 2022 7:53 pm

jeffery p
Landsat imagery over Australia commenced late in 1972. We started using it in my work in 1974.
I have not checked yet if the particular analysis Dr Spencer is using for USA48 has been done for Australia. Too busy correcting wrong impressions by visitors here.
Geoff S

JBP
November 8, 2022 2:57 pm

So does this have any bearing on the pause. ..?

November 8, 2022 3:07 pm

WUWT had Dr Spencer himself expounding this theory just six days ago.

Linnea Lueken does not add insight or understanding.

Reply to  Nick Stokes
November 8, 2022 8:04 pm

Nick,
Linnea adds to greater visibility of good work, which some do not see as a sin. Geoff S

Jim Gorman
Reply to  Geoff Sherrington
November 9, 2022 8:32 am

Linnea adds to greater visibility of good work, which **** MOST do not see as a sin. Geoff S

Corrected it for you!

Can’t use strike thru on my tablet!

Tim Gorman
November 8, 2022 3:15 pm

If this is true, and I have no reason to suspect otherwise then the focus on CO2 will *not* help much at all. In fact it will cause the wrong things to be done. If UHI is a main ingredient in the temp rise the datasets show then the proper focus should be how to reduce the UHI – in essence we should *not* be focused on increasing urban density as so many progressives and Marxists keep pushing with their plans for public transportation and such. More consideration should be given to increasing things like suburbanization. Instead of increasing the impact of “hot spots” those hot spots should be minimized as much as possible. Make it easier for people to move away from urban areas, don’t push them into it!

November 8, 2022 3:22 pm

The (just released for comment draft) National Climate Assessment says the US is warming much faster than the globe.

“Temperatures are rising at super speed in the US / The US is heating up faster than the planet, and that’s already brought changes to every corner of the country.”

https://www.theverge.com/2022/11/8/23447081/us-climate-change-national-climate-assessment-draft

Pure junk! Please comment.

Reply to  David Wojick
November 8, 2022 8:02 pm

David,
Here is some older Australian work showing that BOM adjustments made it look like Australia was warming faster than the rest of the world.
From colleague Chris Gillham, who observed that ”
The homogenised ACORN 2.1 dataset has warmed Australia’s mean temperature anomalies more since the early 1990s than all other land, ocean, satellite and sea surface temperature datasets”.
Well, BOM sort of dumped ACORN-SAT version 2.1 and version 2.2 appeared late in 2021. So far I have not bothered to see if BOM still claims Australia is heating faster than elsewhere. I report this work by Chris to show again that the standard of work by BOM has led to questions and reversals that could save a lot of time if ACORN-SAT itself, as a concept, was ceased and taken out of circulation.
As a demonstration of digging deeper, ACORN-SAT is being promoted to be used instead of raw data analysis Geoff S

http://www.waclimate.net/acorn-comparison.html

Richard Greene
Reply to  Geoff Sherrington
November 9, 2022 3:57 am

After the adjustments, re-adjustments, time of day adjustments, infilling and homogenization …

The Australian BOM has two improvements planned for 2023 and 2024:

(1) In January 2023 BOM will add “Pasteurization”

(2) In January 2024 BOM will just guess the average temperature for Australia using a computer program, to save time and money

Last edited 2 months ago by Richard Greene
Richard Greene
Reply to  David Wojick
November 9, 2022 3:49 am

The slight warming in the NOAA USCRN network since 2005 is barely visible That’s “super speed”?

Last edited 2 months ago by Richard Greene
Jim Gorman
Reply to  David Wojick
November 9, 2022 8:36 am

If CO2 is the driver, then this shouldn’t be happening because CO2 is well mixed!

Are we starting to see an end to CO2 driven CAGW and movement to other tactics?

Bob
November 8, 2022 3:40 pm

Excellent report, short, clear and in language we all can understand. We can not depend on the mainstream media to pick up stories like this. We need to cram it down their throats. We may not be successful at first but if we can get our foot in the door anywhere the news will spread if only to ridicule us. That is fine, I feel confident that we can handle anything the green devils throw at us. All they have brought to the table so far is models and anecdotal evidence that is not enough.

R L Moore
November 8, 2022 6:47 pm

UHI effects are clearly local effects and thus should not contaminate the Global metric, particularly as when attempting to identify a Globally influential phenomenon such as the EGE.
This raises an interesting question based on the observation that ElNino , clearly visible in the temperature record is indeed a local effect (geographically speaking).
Also the current arctic warming and ice melt, should it reverse as many anticipate, be regarded as a local event and so be also discounted in terms of Global temperature accounting?
Just asking?

cognog2
November 9, 2022 12:41 am

The Heartland Institute published an article by Antony Watts et al on this on 4 August 2022. about how 96% of weather stations in the US were basically unfit for purpose due site location etc. giving higher readings of temperature due heat reflection from nearby structures
Much of this due the upgrading of the sensors from the standalone Stevenson units to MMTS units which require a cable supply and for cost reasons etc. resulted in bad siting and non compliance with siting instructions.
I don’t have the link for this; but you can find on the Heartland site under climate/research/temperature clicks.

And then we get on Quora questions bemoaning why so many people mistrust scientists 🙄

Richard Greene
November 9, 2022 1:54 am

Ms Lueken writes a Climate Realism column similar to the H. Sterling Burnett’s columns there. His columns are excellent — hers are mediocre.

UHI is not an issue in the historical climate record
CHANGES in UHI over time are the issue.
A minor issue, in my opinion
.
The oceans (70%) are not affected.
Weather stations in large cities may not be affected — a weather station in Central Park NYC 50 years ago should have a similar UHI effect as today. An urban weather station moved out to an airport may have less UHI at the airport. A rural weather station could have increasing UHI as a village grows up in thevicinity of that weather station.

We can skip this tedious and possible inaccurate study because NOAA already has a weather station network since 2005 (USCRN) that ONLY includes rural automated weather stations, that allegedly do not require adjustments, and won’t be affected by UHI.

Other NOAA weather stations, used for the national temperature average, have similar numbers to USCRN. So a comparison of the two provides no evidence that UHI changes over times, at least since 2005, had much of an effect on the average US temperature. On the other hand, I don’t trust NOAA and find it suspicious that their best weather station network has numbers so similar to their other weather station network. That sees suspicious.

The USCRN data are on the home page of this website (right side)
I believe they show a slight rising trend since 2005.

Last edited 2 months ago by Richard Greene
Janice Moore
Reply to  Richard Greene
November 9, 2022 10:22 am

How about offering some helpful criticism to Ms. Luekens, Mr. Greene.

1. Burnett’s articles are “excellent” because……

2. Luekens’ articles are “mediocre” because …… and could be improved by ……..

(Note: I have found that Ms. Luekens’ articles are not inferior to Mr. Burnett’s.)

Last edited 2 months ago by Janice Moore
Janice Moore
Reply to  Janice Moore
November 9, 2022 11:06 am

Edit: replace “Luekens” with “Lueken.” My apologies.

Javier Vinós
November 9, 2022 2:23 am

The IPCC is correct that most warming is anthropogenic. It is taking place within computers made by mankind.

comment image

Figure 6.9 from The Winter Gatekeeper Hypothesis VI.

Tom.1
November 9, 2022 3:25 am

I would invite people to visit this link and compare ClimDiv and USCRN data. National Temperature Index | National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI) (noaa.gov)

Richard Greene
Reply to  Tom.1
November 9, 2022 4:06 am

Why are you not suspicious that one network with poor station siting has almost the same temperature average as the other network with allegedly excellent siting?

Is USCRN accurate, and used to adjust ClimDiv?
Or is ClimDiv accurate, and used to adjust USCRN?
Or are BOTH USCRN and ClimDiv inaccurate?
We do not know.

Richard Greene
November 9, 2022 7:23 am

In consensus government bureaucrat science exaggeration is the name of the game:
Exaggerated CAGW
Exaggerated AGW
Exaggerated global average temperature trend
Exaggerated US average temperature trend
Exaggerated alarm over every bad weather event.

Exaggeration is a form of lying
Leftists deceive and lie most of the time.
They appear to tell the truth, and nothing but the truth, only by accident.
They have to lie to get and keep political power because leftists ruin everything they touch. So they can’t run on their record.

mcsandberg007
November 9, 2022 9:40 am

I really don’t see how they can keep the hoax going for much longer.

Atlas Shrugged was supposed to be a warning, Not A Newspaper!

Last edited 2 months ago by mcsandberg007
JC
November 9, 2022 10:31 am

Thanks for the data to prove it, but it isn’t a surprise, unless you live in a blue heat sink.

%d bloggers like this:
Verified by MonsterInsights