From Dr. Roy Spencer’s Global Warming Blog
After years of dabbling in this issue, John Christy and I have finally submitted a paper to Journal of Applied Meteorology and Climatology entitled, “Urban Heat Island Effects in U.S. Summer Surface Temperature Data, 1880-2015“.
I feel pretty good about what we’ve done using the GHCN data. We demonstrate that, not only do the homogenized (“adjusted”) dataset not correct for the effect of the urban heat island (UHI) on temperature trends, the adjusted data appear to have even stronger UHI signatures than in the raw (unadjusted) data. This is true of both trends at stations (where there are nearby rural and non-rural stations… you can’t blindly average all of the stations in the U.S.), and it’s true of the spatial differences between closely-space stations in the same months and years.
The bottom line is that an estimated 22% of the U.S. warming trend, 1895 to 2023, is due to localized UHI effects.
And the effect is much larger in urban locations. Out of 4 categories of urbanization based upon population density (0.1 to 10, 10-100, 100-1,000, and >1,000 persons per sq. km), the top 2 categories show the UHI temperature trend to be 57% of the reported homogenized GHCN temperature trend. So, as one might expect, a large part of urban (and even suburban) warming since 1895 is due to UHI effects. This impacts how we should be discussing recent “record hot” temperatures at cities. Some of those would likely not be records if UHI effects were taken into account.
Yet, those are the temperatures a majority of the population experiences. My point is, such increasing warmth cannot be wholly blamed on climate change.
One of the things I struggled with was how to deal with stations having sporadic records. I’ve always wondered if one could use year-over-year changes instead of the usual annual-cycle-an-anomaly calculations, and it turns out you can, and with extremely high accuracy. (John Christy says he did it many years ago for a sparse African temperature dataset). This greatly simplifies data processing, and you can use all stations that have at least 2 years of data.
Now to see if the peer review process deep-sixes the paper. I’m optimistic.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Good luck getting it published anywhere but WUWT or like web sites. Please keep us informed on how it progresses. Very unlikely to ever be referenced in an IPCC report.
I believe that having this on the web, particularly WUWT gives you priority. When the dust eventually settles on the CO2 induced scare mongering Spencer and Christy will be seen as scientists doing a good job over many decades.
Even if published, it is not going to alter any of the official homogenisation processes that are configured to enhance the warming trend. And constantly revised to keep[ on giving. That past is getting much colder.
Are you kidding?
Give up cushy, long-term job security and career advancement by agreeing with the opposition?
All scientific magazines have to toe the line, because the IPCC and co-hordes claim to “own the science”; no real scientist would ever claim such nonsense.
Similar to the Roman Catholic Church claiming the earth was the center of the universe, which was not true as calculated, based on measured data, by the Persians and Egyptians, many centuries before.
Don’t go dragging your bigotry into a science/political issue.
Remember Galileo couldn’t prove his assertions, he ridiculed Kepler for suggesting ellipses instead of the perfect circles that he used – and he had been free teach until he ridiculed his friend in publication and that friend was the Pope.
If Galileo had been in Germany he would have been burned as a warlock.
In England, drawn and quartered and his property seized for the king’s treasury.
Side note: the English Reformation (the political take over of the Church by force) set back steel production a few CENTURIES. The monks there, before being kicked out of their homes, had developed a fairly cheap and effective method of steel production, unequaled until the 1800s.
Not to mention that Copernicus was a cleric.
The universe has no centre, so the Church was entirely correct: as far as human ability to comprehend it goes, the earth was, and still is the centre of the observable universe.
All Galileo had done, as the Church pointed out,was to come up with a mathematical model that made the calculations of orbital times a lot simpler.
His crime was to claim that this model represented the Truth.
This is a problem that has dogged science ever since: the inconvenient truth is that science does not reveal THE Truth – at best it models some truth that is however never revealed.
The best we and Dawkins can say is that ‘It works, bitches’.
And of course, when it comes to climate science, it doesn’t even work.
Which makes it at best metaphysical, and at worst, fraud.
The Universe might have a center since it had an origin and has been expanding in all directions. The maximum size of the Universe can be estimated knowing that nothing travels faster than light and knowing the approximate age of the Universe.
An interesting question: If the Sun suddenly disappeared, what would we notice first, the absence of its light or the absence of its gravitational deformation of space? Does gravity travel faster than light? I’ve never read anything about this question.
“Does gravity travel faster than light? I’ve never read anything about this question.”
Newton requires gravity to travel instantaneously. GR limits gravity speed to that of light. It’s interesting, the vector that points to the current visible position of the Sun doesn’t align with the vector that aligns with the Earth’s acceleration toward the Sun. The second vector points to the actual position of the Sun and not the visible position.
Not many people know that. Once several years ago I found a youtube (I think) that gave a perspective on how fast and long it would take light to travel to the edge of the solar system. It was quite long, although you could speed it up when you tired of waiting.
NASA GISS seems to adjust rural stations upwards to match UHI affected stations.
It appears that NASA GISS fiddles with all the data:
From the article: “the adjusted data appear to have even stronger UHI signatures than in the raw (unadjusted) data”
NASA GISS just can’t leave well enough alone.
You can’t trust NASA GISS temperature data.
If I’ve noticed this on my own property where the temperature next to walls and on the concrete driveway/walkway is higher than on grassy areas even after the sun is no longer is striking them, how have these climate experts failed to take similar conditions into account in urban areas with far greater concentrations of heat absorbing materials? Or maybe it’s a case of their being paid to downplay the reporting of these findings to promote the climate alarmism agenda.
Because they have never been outside their offices. It should be compulsory for Climate Scientists to take a morning walk of at least 1/2 hour before having breakfast. This may alert them to the fact that temperature can vary from one place to another even as close as a few metres apart.
Yeah. A/c house to a/c car to a/c office and back again. No wonder they have a completely warped idea of reality.
Many years ago sometime in 1972/3 I went from Oxford to London to meet my ex girlfriend for lunch.It was a hot summer’s day. We ate in a place near Leicester Square pretty much in central London. I remarked how hot it was, much hotter than Paddington Station where the train from Oxford arrived which is several miles from Leicester Square. I knew nothing about UHI then but can still vividly remember the much greater heat in Leicester Square.
Sounds like a very interesting study and paper. I wish I understood the peer review process better; could somebody point me in the right direction to understanding the peer review process as it stands now in the scientific community? I know that it’s become a divisive topic…
They have become gatekeepers of published papers – if your name isn’t approved or on the list at all, you won’t get in. A certain mindset, shall we say, control the funding streams to such publications, which can be switched off.
Anyone can write a scientific paper. Many people do. The best papers have absolutely zero peers capable of reviewing them. Therefore, peer review is only a method of deciding how many of your new friends will actually get to read your paper.
…thanks guys for your input.
Nice to see the quantification. Hope the paper gets accepted. Puts paid to the old BEST/Hausfalter claim that UHI played no role in the temperature records.
I don’t think anyone would argue otherwise. Most of the earth is covered by water, though, far from any urban influence, and temperature measurements over water also show warming.
I will be interested to read your paper if/when it is published.
“over water also show warming.”
So again you show that the slight warming is nothing to do with human CO2, or any other human causation.
Well Done ! 🙂
Do they ?
Prove it !
Sure thing. Satellites show warming over water:
As do SST measurements:
Last but not least, ocean heat content is increasing:
Any desperate attempts to play off global warming as nothing more than urbanization bias are doomed to fail from the start. If Roy’s paper has something new and interesting to say about UHI, and it’s enough pass peer review, it will be an interesting discussion in its own right, but will have little bearing on the reality of global warming.
ROFLMAO.
how us where they measured heat content in 1960.
You are such a funny little zealot. !
typo how -> Show
Heck with 1960, the idea that we had much of an idea what the heat content of the oceans in 2000 was ludicrous.
Trying to claim that we know what the heat content of the oceans is, today, is unsupportable.
A few hundred probes, trying to cover all the world’s oceans? Not a chance.
But- the surface of the Earth’s oceans is only 139 million square miles. A few hundred probes ought to be enough with very high statistical accuracy, sufficient to convince us to spend a few quadrillion dollars to save the Earth. 🙂
“. . . heat content . . . .”
“Heat content,” ugh! In thermodynamics, systems do not “contain” heat. Heat is defined as the energy that crosses a system boundary due to a temperature difference. Probably a more correct phrase would be “internal energy.” Heat capacity is also a badly named term, but we are stuck with it.
Not to mention that the Argo floats are showing cooler temperatures than the narrative will allow so are deliberately warmed up to conform with the biased and error riddled ‘bucket dunk’ and ‘engine intake’ temperature sampling by ocean-going ships. If the raw data from Argo was used then there would be far less warming in evidence; in effect, the oceans ARE showing an equivalent to the UHI increase.
No one seems to know this! I read about three years ago. It’s artificial UHI for the oceans via data manipulations. The real issue is that no one actually knows what adjustments should be made to make the old “bucket dump” equivalent to the ARGO floats. Even intake temperature sampling was never calibrated so who knows if the recorded measurements were high or low compared to ARGO. All the adjustments to ARGO were mere guesses@ur momisugly!
What *should* have been done was to start a whole new data set beginning with the ARGO floats. By now we would have had a good record to look at. As it stands today the ocean data is as contaminated as the land data.
Once modifications are allowed on any single piece of data without detailed records of what and why, the fiction begins. When fiction is promoted as actual, unethical behavior is rewarded.
The government trumpets transparency, but how many people know that the published data has been massaged from an old fat man until it looks like superman?
Willis did a calculation on this sometime back and concluded each of the Argo floats supposedly represented an area the size of Portugal.
You left out the word “average”. The average global temperature is increasing. Some locations are cooling, which no climate model can predict because CO2 is all they have and it does nothing to the energy balance.
Most of the ocean surface warming is in the northern hemisphere in summer. The Southern Hemisphere still has a slight upward trend on average but the summer temperature is now colder than it was 40 years ago.
The SH south of 40S has cooled over the past 40 years. THe Southern Ocean a steady cooling trend for the past 40 years.
Ocean heat content cannot change by heat diffusion in decades. The only way it can heat at depth is for evaporation to slow down, which is happening of course as more of the NH surface hits the 30C limit in summer to regulate surface sunlight.
‘Average’ is most definitely the operative word – how is it averaged, how is it weighted and, in areas absent of thermometers, is this also not weighting? How on earth they can justify averaging summer and winter temperatures from the different hemispheres, let alone completely different regional readings is completely mind-boggling to me. The only explanation I have come up with is that these are just computer nerds dealing with abstract numbers who have not one clue how to work with actual temperature data – it’s all just a computer simulation to them, not real.
Temperature measurement of ocean surface has a further serious complication – sea ice.
The convention appears to be that the water surface below the ice is what gets used. It cannot be measured of course on anything approaching a global scale. It is a matter of having some idea where the land starts and assuming the water surface under the ice shelves or just floating ice is at -1.7C.
So melting sea ice can have a huge impact on the surface temperature as that temperature goes from an assumed -1.7C to maybe 1C.
However the best trick for thermal scare mongers is to just take anomalies. That hides much of the real information. For example, who knew that the place and time of that most rapid warming over the past 70 years is the Greenland Plateau in winter. Up around 9C from a base of MINUS 35C.
The sea ice explains what is observed in the attached with Arctic Ocean SST increasing significantly in summer. By contrast, the Southern Ocean has a sustained cooling trend.
If you ever get credible, sensible answers to these obvious questions, Richard, please pen an article and post it here and everywhere else that will publish it.
The concept of “average global temperature” is so simplistic as to be legitimately considered arrant nonsense.
There are just so many variables and misalignments in this whole construct – too many to list.
How are all these factors “controlled” such that their influences on temps and records are the same at all points where measurements are being taken?
We could disappear up our own orifices (orifii?) discussing precision and accuracy.
I’ve been saying this for years, not only about the ocean but land also. Oceans have currents. Where you measure the temps are affected by currents. ARGO floats aren’t anchored and I am sure they encounter currents that carry differing temperatures. Gyres tend to collect things. I’ve never had the time to dig into ARGO but it would be interesting to follow some of the paths of particular floats to see what they actually are measuring.
This quote is just another example of Alan’s penchant for arguing against positions that nobody is making.
Nobody is arguing against a belief that the Earth has warmed up a little bit since the end of the Little Ice Age.
What we are arguing against, is the completely unsupported belief that CO2 is the major factor behind that warming.
What we are arguing against is the completely unsupported belief that the minor warming over the last 200 years, is anything other than beneficial.
Of course the average temperature is increasing. They dropped a large number of stations in the colder parts of the planet to achieve just that result.
Also, show us where Gistemp Ocean comes from…
Show us where they measured oceans prior ARGO.
Even Phil Jones said that Southern ocean temperatures were “mostly made up”
“Even Phil Jones said that Southern ocean temperatures were “mostly made up””
Yeah, and then Phil Jones proceeded to use those made-up numbers to cool the past in his computer and turn out an instrument-era Hockey Stick chart.
The Early Twentieth Century was just as warm as today according to the land temperature records but not after Phil Jones got through adjusting all the temperatures down using bogus sea surface temperatures to offset the warm land surface temperatures.
And Phil refused to show his work. He refused to show how he arrived at his Hockey Stick chart.
And now the whole world is wasting TRILLIONS of dollars based on this Phil Jones fraudulent global surface temperature creation.
Phil Jones won’t give a damn, he’s retired from CRU and been given a nice cushy professor job at UEA, his successor was a student and graduate of UEA climatology dept so indoctrinated with the exact same ideology. He’s got what he wanted and sod the rest of humanity.
The fact the oceans are warming , shows IT IS NOT CO2 or any other human causation.
Well Done ! 🙂
You have just confirmed NATURAL WARMING 🙂
Even if GisTemp Oceans was real….
It shows no acceleration since 1900.
Absolutely zero evidence of any enhanced atmospheric CO2 effect.
Glad to have you on the realist side, that knows that CO2 does not contribute anything measurable to global temperatures.
And there he goes again, fighting valiantly against an argument nobody has made.
Nobody has claimed that all of the warming is due to UHI.
The point that has been made, and this paper confirms, is that the claimed warming was contaminated by UHI and as a result, the actual warming, and hence the warming trend, was much less than the alarmists have been claiming.
If the trend is less, then the climate sensitivity is less.
If much of the trend was the result of UHI, then the models all need to be retuned.
Finally, if much of the trend was the result of UHI, then there is even less reason to try and stop the production of CO2. (Not that there was any reason previoiusly)
The paper does not confirm this. It has not been published, or undergone peer review. None of us has seen it. It is also restricted to the contiguous US, so it does not even apply to all land surfaces. It applies to 2% of the global area, and possibly shows that the estimated trend for this 2% is off by perhaps 20%. This does not have substantial implications for the globe.
OMG.. You really think UHI only happens in the USA.
That is truly bizarre, and utterly unrealist. (like most things you say).
It is highly likely that the UHI affect in the USA is far less than other places, and that the 22% UHI is actually a large underestimate in the global data.
You don’t get to just declare things, you have to demonstrate them via analysis. This paper is restricted to CONUS, so its results are applicable to CONUS. To suggest otherwise is unscientific.
But, again, there is no UHI over the oceans, which are warming.
Satellites show warming over water?
Sure. But satellites do not measure the temperature of the water, but of the total emissions of the planet including its atmosphere…
And as we know the adjustment of water temperatures by the measurement of fossil fuel powered boats in shipping lanes makes any measurements from those meaningless. As with UHI, measuring temperatures where man has artificially increased them does not reflect a global change.
How did they measure those sea surface temperatures back in the 1930’s?
Answer: Sailors threw buckets over the side of their ship to collect water to measure the temperature.
How much of the world’s oceans were *not* sampled using this method? How accurate is a bucket measurement of temperature?
Hockey Sticks on land and Hockey Sticks on the ocean. How convenient for alarmists. Have you thanked the Temperature Data Mannipulatos lately?
They still throw a bucket over the side in most cases and the stupidity of it all is that the Argo buoys readings, arguably far more accurate and less error-prone, are being adjusted upwards to match the ‘bucket heaved over the side, dunked in the top 20cm of water and read by a manual thermometer on a warm sunny deck’ method! Madness.
This study from 2015 says that cold weather kills 20 times as many people as hot weather and that moderately warm or cool weather kills far more people than extreme weather. Increased strokes and heart attacks from cool weather are the main cause of the deaths. When it gets cool our bodies capillaries constrict to conserve heat causing our blood pressure to rise causing increased strokes and heart attacks.
‘Mortality risk attributable to high and low ambient temperature: a multi-country observational study’ https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(14)62114-0/fulltext
The climate of the Earth as a whole is still a 2.58-million-year ice age named the Quaternary Glaciation. The Earth is in a warm interglacial period that happens about every 100,000 years and lasts about 10,000 years which alternates with a cold glacial period that lasts about 90,000 years. The Earth still has around 200,000 glaciers and 11 percent of the land is permafrost. The ice age the Earth is in won’t end and the climate won’t officially change until all the natural ice melts. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quaternary_glaciation
Thing is….. the land surface data IS from heavily affected urban areas and airports.
That is what GISS et al measure and mal-manipulate.
There is absolutely no rational way of DENYING this fact…
… no matter how much your agenda may want you to.
So why is the air over the oceans also warming, according to UAH?
Get out of your padded basement and look up.
Unless you are Greta, you will see the SUN, not CO2.
If you still imagine in your puny little mind that CO2 causes atmospheric warming… then produce scientific evidence.
Also explain how forests grew, where now there are glaciers.
No increase in TSI over the UAH period of record (since 1979). So the sun can’t be the cause of the observed warming of the air over the oceans.
So is it street lights, cars, or what? Under-water volcanoes that come and go? Maybe whales have become more flatulent?
Any excuse is better than the reality, right?
You are talking gibberish again.
Coming up with your own childish little fantasies.
TSI has remained high, after a period of very high..
Of course it causes warming.
If you still imagine in your puny little mind that CO2 causes atmospheric warming… then produce scientific evidence.
Also explain how forests grew, where now there are glaciers.
TSI has not increased; so it cannot be the explanation for the observed rise in temperature over the oceans. If TSI has remained constant, then how can it be responsible for a temperature increase?
You’re an odd little chap. Very snappy, lol!
How about cloud?
Here is a litle child that has never done a thing for himself in its life.
Hint.. if you have a large pot of water on a stove on 9, and turn it down to 7.
The water continues to get hotter.
You are still adding energy.
You truly are a moronic little trollette.
With zero understanding of anything remotely real.
If you still imagine in your puny little mind that CO2 causes atmospheric warming… then produce scientific evidence.
Also explain how forests grew, where now there are glaciers.
Noted that you still are incapable of doing so….
All you can manage is a petty, trite, gormless attempt at distraction.
Red thumbs don’t understand even basic cooking and heat transfer.
Probably think you heat water by putting a layer of CO2 over it.
Exceptionally DUMB !!
Thanks for proving my point. 🙂
If you place a pot of water on the stove and heat it at 9 until the temperature stops going up (i.e. it has reached equilibrium), then turn the heat setting to 7, the pot of water will cool down a bit. This is, in fact, how you cook rice on the stovetop: bring the pot to a boil then turn it down to simmer.
I said a big pot…. obviously you didn’t understand the analogy
Only a very ignorant fool thinks the oceans ever reach equilibrium with the solar energy coming in.
I don’t think most of the CAGW advocates on here have *any* experience with the real world at all. Mommy cooks for them. Daddy takes care of the maintenance for the household. The only experience with “heating” is sitting in the sun around the swimming pool = getting “hot”.
I want you to go conduct an experiment. Bring a pot of water to a boil, measure the temperature, then turn the heat on the stove down. After 10 minutes measure the temperature again. If it has gone up, bnice is correct and I’ll happily concede. If the temperature has gone down, do please consider asking for help the next time you cook a family dinner.
Think about that a bit more. Once water has reached the liquid/gas phase change temperature, the temperature can be maintained with a lot less heat input.
I dunno where you got the temperature increase from, but it could be done by playing about with the pressure and heat input.
It doesn’t matter how large the pot is. If you bring it to equilibrium with incoming/outgoing energy, then reduce the incoming energy, it will cool until it regains equilibrium. You believe it will warm. You could resolve your confusion in your own kitchen. Experiment with pots of varying sizes.
“If TSI has remained constant . . . .”
TSI varies during the year as the Earth moves in its elliptical orbit. It is definitely not constant.
2 things. Clean air act of the 1970s resulted in more energy reaching the (land) surface instead of being reflected (by aerosol action). Secondly, marine diesel has had a gradual reduction (from 2015 to approximately 2020) in sulfur content (to zero) resulting in another huge reduction in aerosols and more energy reaching the (particularly northern hemisphere) oceans. Again, more energy means an increase in temperature.
If you turn your gas burner on with a pot of water on top of it does the water warm? The TSI from the gas burner stays the same – does the water stay the same as well?
Those pre-glacier forests had good, proper natural CO2 as fertilizer, not that sub-standard Chinese stuff that’s up there today.
( /sarc for those slow on the uptake)
Any news from the Nail on the glacier trees
Nope… just more running and hiding like a little child. !
“Any excuse is better than the reality, right?”
You have tried them all.
STILL NO EVIDENCE of CO2 WARMING.
Just your pathetic little fantasies…
Reality is something you have zero understanding of.
Hem apart from the first 20ppm of CO2 forming most of the warming ‘blanket’ (for the tree huggers out there) and then an exponential drop off to (~) no effect with additional CO2, however it gets into the atmosphere!
What a stupid thing to say since it is the Sun that dominantly warms the ocean water thus the dominant cause of warming of the air above the surface is because the sun imparted all that energy there.
Assuming that all the data you have provided is an accurate representation of reality.
Now explain how CO2 or any other “green house gases” caused that! The claimed feed back model has failed to provide the answers since there are no permanent hot spots in the troposphere over the tropics.
About 80% of the sea surface warming of the oceans occurs in the tropical band by insolation. So the question is; Where did all that thermal energy come from?
Very nice. I am confident that Spencer and Christy dotted all the i’s and crossed all the t’s. If the people doing the peer review try any shenanigans we should make a big deal about it. Use this study to draw a line in the sand and say no more playing games with peer review, we are watching you and we will come after you.
I suspect that future studies will prove this to be a significant underestimate !
Sounds like a great paper. Best wishes for a positive and speedy approval. 😁😁.
I would love to see an unwinding of all past adjustments and a readjustment of the data using this new information on UHI.
A few other ham-handed adjustments that need critical examination are, a) ‘sliding’ segments of the temperature record up to disappear the well-known deep cooling period from 1945 to 1979 (Ice Age Cometh scare), and the pushing down (by over 0.5°C) of the real 20th century T° high stand late 1930s to early 1940s. These two adjustments were made by Jim Hansen in 2007 on the eve of his retirement! He was disappointed that super el Niño of 1998 failed to achieve a new record at the time. BEST Temp followed suit, ‘validating’ this egregious scheme.
Another Mike-like Nature trick are station moves. To be sure station moves can be necessary over time, but under this cover, station moves are used when the existence of one is a stubborn embarrassment to the climateering synod. The world record holding Death Valley station – measured in 1913 at 134°F. Moreover, over the course of a week, the temp remained within a degree ir two of the record supporting this temp. The temperature wroughters were ok with this record until 2013, when they shut it down and moved to a new location. Sure enough, they finally reported a new all time earth high of… 130°F in 2020. In 2021 they jubilantly reported that the all time high was equaled again! Now station moves are part of the temp jiggering toolbox.
Fraudulent Climate Science produced by Climate Science Propagandists.
Our politicians are currently destroying our economies and societes based soley on this particular temperature record fraud.
May or may not be related.
Where I worked we were one of the sites that reported daily precipitation.
During the Covid lockdowns, a guy I worked with over the phone from the NWS came out to inspect our rain gauge and it’s siting. (We had moved it during some construction.)
Long story short, he told that the temperature instruments and readings at our major airport and other large ones used be recorded (directly?) by the NWS. But then the FAA took that over. They only call in the NWS if there’s a major problem with the instruments. (And the FAA would keep sending in the suspect readings.)
Since then those airports routinely are the highest readings in the area.
(Maybe in addition to UHI (Urban Heat Island) effect, we need to explore WDRHI (Who’s Doing the Reporting Heat Island) effect?
Right, but the problem facing the ‘it’s all down to UHI’ argument is, as pointed out above very clearly by AlanJ, that the oceans and the air above the oceans are also warming. I’m sure you will agree that this can’t be explained by UHI effect.
Not an accurate statement. The AVERAGE of all oceans has a warming trend. But some regions are cooling. And the ocean warming trend in the NH is mostly in summer. And significantly in the Arctic due to loss of sea ice and Mediterranean due to narrow latitudinal range and narrow connection to the North Atlantic.
Climate models are wrong because they cannot have a static trend or cooling trend. They are constrained to warm everywhere. Observations show that there is sustained cooling trend in the Southern Ocean and the Nino34 region. The observations confirm the climate models are all junk. Their predictions have no merit.
I was talking about the average, ‘oceans’. So it is an accurate statement.
Not disputed; but on average the oceans are warming. Clearly UHI effect is not the cause.
You then go on about models. This is nothing to do with models. These are measured temperature changes.
Agree with this.
But the reason I went into the models is that they prove it is not CO2 either.
So the cause is?
What measured temperature changes? The ARGO float data that has been manipulated? UAH which measures atmospheric temperature and not actual ocean temperature?
So you invent some anti-science nonsense cause that you are incapable of providing a single bit of scientific evidence for.
Hilariously stupid!
Look up, muppet. feel the Sun’s heat !!
That is where nearly all the planets energy comes from.
CO2 contributes absolutely NOTHING. !
So the red thumb moron can’t counter what I said… just doesn’t like the facts.
Sadly pathetic.
Thanks for making my point again. 🙂
“ ‘it’s all down to UHI’ “
There you go “inventing” your own understanding due to your child-like lack of comprehension..
This paper says at least 22%.. I suspect it is considerably more.
The point is that the surface data is highly contaminated by urban and airport heat effects.
These are the homogenised to rural areas that are not as badly contaminated.
With the data and methodology used….
… There is absolutely no possible way that the surface data fabrications can give a realistic assessment of changes in global temperature over time..
Red thumb fool…
can you counter this FACT… or is it that you can’t face reality.
… There is absolutely no possible way that the surface data fabrications can give a realistic assessment of changes in global temperature over time..
Firstly it’s not ‘all down to UHI’ but it is ‘all’ contaminated by some amount of UHI and, because the idiot climate enthusiasts have ‘homogenised’ the entire lot we simply don’t know by how much. Do you understand now? It’s not that a certain amount has to be added or subtracted it’s the fact that because it’s all mixed in together then the entire dataset is wrong. We know this, we can flippin see this but, because we can’t seperate the good data from the contaminated data then the entire lot has to be junked. All of it. Do you understand now? Am I finally getting through?
You just stated A HUGE reason for NOT adjusting data. It is why EVERY adjustment, right down to the actual single reading, must be documented as to why and how much.
I hope climate science recognizes that the issue of UHI can’t be addressed by adjusting already adjusted data. Scientists will need to go back to the original data and hopefully it is still available.
We had all better hope so or the last 50 years (at least) of data will need to be junked in its entirety. That means every ‘2nd hottest month’ or ’13th hottest year’ claim that some of these climate enthusiasts are fond of are complete and utter rubbish, a worthless and utter waste of time and effort.
Using differences rather than anomalies was discussed a few times in WUWT under Econometrics. Simpler with superior results likely.
Using anomalies, climate science has managed to set back the practice of mathematics by centuries.
Shame on me for being so slow (on the uptake)
Cities are warm because The Emperor’s Clothes keep them warm.
i.e. Wild imaginings about ‘heat absorbent stuff‘ and ‘radiation‘.
Everybody nowadays is Really Clever and knows All About Radiation = just as they visualise The Emperor. And CO₂
That cities are warm, nobody denies that, rides a Coach & Horses through the notions of Radiation Effects. And CO₂
(and Imperial Attire = *The* significant problem there = stupid, usually male, pride)
Cities are warm because they are dry – there is no water within them.
It gets worse for cities.
Evaporating water would:
IOW: Water makes weather
Extend that to other properties of ‘dry places’ = most especially that they are very dusty.
And what does that dust do:
1/ Blow up into the sky, where the sun heats it and warms the air, where thermometers and Sputniks sense it and say: “Oh look, the Temperature has gone up”
2/ Washes away in the torrential sudden rainstorms that inflict upon deserts and dry places. The muddy water thus created pours out into the ocean and absorbs solar radiation to barely 20 metres depth instead of 100 metres it normally would in clear water.
The surface of the ocean thus becomes hotter than it otherwise would and over larger areas, subject to its 31°C Stefan Limit within the Tropics. Hello Manatee Bay off coast of Florida recently.
And everybody says: “Oh look, the ocean has got hot”
3/ What do arable farmers do, and, freely admit to doing using ploughs and tillage machines?
Answer (their own words) : They ‘Dry out and warm up the soil‘ so that their seeds germinate and grow faster
IOW: They do all the things that city builders do and they do it over immense areas – farmers turn entire continents into ‘urban heat islands‘
Then what happens? not least because there’s more water than land on this Earth.
= Entire continents become stuck under the descending legs of Hadley Cells.
Sometimes called Resistant Ridges, Persistent Highs or Heat Domes.
See them highlighted in the attached image
Thereafter the drying and the heating become self-reinforcing.
It’s easy to tell if you are under a persistent Hadley Cell because your local barometric pressure (corrected for height above AMSL) averages greater than 1013millibar
Sometimes called a ‘Mediterranean Climate‘ as if it’s some sort of lovely nice desirable thing. You could hardly be more wrong.
We are in a lot of trouble here – because of the fixation on what The Emperor is wearing to the absolute exclusion (denial) of any other plausible explanation.
Of which there are myriad but all coming down to one thing: Water
Cities are not hot because they capture/trap a lot of energy (the GHGE is garbage) – cities are hot because they cannot cool themselves and the same applies everywhere on (haha) Dry Land
i.e. Dry land should not be = dry
Yes, even Antarctica is a desert = stuck under a persistent resistant ridge, in turn created by all the (relatively) warm water surrunding it
We don’t want or need thermometers to record Antarctica weather, we need barometers.
And they do their own averaging over vast areas of ground/ocean
And the oceans are warming because…?
Can you prove, without a shadow of doubt, that the sample methodology was good? That it hasn’t been contaminated in a similar way to land temperatures? Or that the Argo, satellite, bucket dunk and engine intake sampling methods were all free from error and properly calibrated to each other? Can you say, with certainty that every region has representation in the temperature dataset?
If you can, honestly now, say yes to all these questions with 100% certainty then we can move on to other possibilities.
Climate science hasn’t even established a functional relationship between temperature and climate! Focusing on temperature is nothing more than following TRADION – back when local temperatures *were* the only clue to local climate that most people had. Even then there were only three basic measurements – it’s hot, it’s cold, or it’s just right.
I give you Las Vegas and Miami. Similar temperatures but vastly different climates. But according to climate science they are the same!
Are you joking? This is a known effect for decades. Portland Oregon used to have its official weather temperature station in downtown, from 1859 to 1941. It showed the normal temperature increase associated with the urban heat island effect. Then, they moved the official weather monitoring station to the portland airport, about 10 miles east, and right on the edge of the Colombia River. All of a sudden, the previous warmth disappeared. Now, 80 years later, the airport area has been greatly expanded by growth. The very same heat increase shows now that showed in 1941. This used to be available on the web, but somehow I can no longer find it. Both Portland and the airport often show up as 10 degrees different than at my home, 10 miles west of Portland, where we receive the weather before Portland does. My weather station is often 10 degrees different. The only difference is that the weather hits me before it hits portland, which has soaked up heat the day before and slowly releases it at night.
The Airport temperature right now is 58. I have 54. It’s only 2030. By morning, it will be a larger difference. This happens virtually every day. I’ve recorded these temperatures for over 15 years.
Most people generally live in/near cities, BUT if get out of a city the “heat island effect” is really apparent. I used to bicycle a great deal, 50 miles in general and a 100 mile ride once a week. and let me tell you all that the cities are really much warmer when you get a few miles away.
Now I just walk every day from 5 mile walks to a 15 mile walk, but the effect is still the same.
I suppose, if you can get it published in a peer reviewed journal, the Mann bully team will come along to force the journal to retract it. But let’s hope, if even for a short time, that it gets officially published.
It won’t matter to Mann much. As long as they don’t warm the 1930’s to today’s levels, the “hottest year evah! narrative continues.
Yet the 1930s were much cooler, globally, than all recent decades.
It’s bizarre how this American-centric myth persists, just because the 1930s were a warm decade there.
It’s a bit like the 1976 phenomenon in the UK. It was really hot that summer and I remember it although I was about 10. But it has been surpassed several times since, when averages are looked at, not just daily max.
Since you are a climate model believer, read this.
“”””The observed global warming of the past century occurred primarily in two distinct 20 year periods, from 1925 to 1944 and from 1978 to the present.”””””
https://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/early-20th-century-global-warming/
Maybe you can refute the finding of NOAA.
You have fallen far, haven’t you? You have sunk so low into the mire of the agw groupthink that you can no longer recognise what is right or wrong. Ignore the latest revision of the historical data and the rewriting of the past – go back and look at the archived raw data.
Mike Hulme disagrees with you.
“In the context of the last few centuries the summer of 2022 in Central England/England and Wales was hot and dry. But it was not exceptionally so. The summers of 176 and 1995 were both substantially hotter and drier”
“What a long climatic time series shows us is that extremes of temperature and rainfall have always occurred”
https:mikehulme.org/the-2022-uk-summer-in-long-term-perspective/
Dang!
https://mikehulme.org/the-2022-uk-summer-in- long-term-perspective/
I’ll get this right eventually 🙂
https://mikehulme.org/the-2022-uk-summer-in-long-term-perpective/
Here we can see how this thing is going off the rails.
If changing average warmness is sometimes considered a climate change, and other times not, we have no common basis.
We should seek to describe the data as they are.
If the temperature is changing, and this is 20-30% attributable to the construction of large urban landscapes, it is most reasonable to account for this in our mechanistic descriptions.
To adjust reality out of the data is to adjust reality out of our minds.
Non-climatic “biases” are just that. A biased definition of climate – not one of reality – ever since radiation enthusiasts took over and ran us into the ditch.
“We should seek to describe the data as they are.”
If they want to rename GISS et al to something like..
“Agenda-adjusted urban and airport surface temperature fabrication”
I have no problem !
Just admit what they really are.
They are not remotely an indicator of global climate.
Right, so how does UHI effect account for the warming observed in global sea surface temperatures, ocean heat content and the air just above the ocean surface?
You’ve been told this so often it isn’t funny. Sunshine, plain old sunshine. It surely isn’t CO2 back radiation. Now, figure out why more sunshine might be reaching the ocean. Hint, sulfur emissions from ships might be reduced. What else might be helping?
Yes, I am frequently told the same unsubstantiated nonsense that you are now telling me. ‘It’s the sun’.
What do you mean by ‘sunshine’? Are you talking about Total Solar Irradiance (TSI)?
The TSI trend since 1980 is downward. Cooling, if you will. So how does that explain the marked warming trend over the same period?
Don’t be stupid. Fewer aerosols, fewer clouds. Here is one post on this site.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2023/04/13/more-on-cloud-reduction-co2-is-innocent-but-clouds-are-guilty/
Refute it.
“””””Lindzen proposes the mechanism by which greater negative feedback is produced: High altitude cirrus clouds (Dr. Stevens’ low-water high altitude ice clouds that cause warming) control heat emissions to space. As the air below these clouds warms, the cirrus clouds dissipate and allow more energy to radiate into space. He calls this the Iris Effect.”””””
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2023/04/12/think-we-can-model-the-climate-clouds-get-in-the-way/
Refute it.
Gosh you are that stupid since the Sun is the DOMINANT source of energy to the planet’s waters without the sun ALL of the waters would freeze solid and sublimate into space.
“. . . sublimate . . . .”
You shouldn’t use such sophisticated terms. It confuses the activists.
Temperature is a very poor proxy for “climate”. A change from -30C to -20C at the pole doesn’t change the climate much, what is frozen already remains frozen. In the Amazon River basin a change from 35C to 40C doesn’t change the climate very much, it’s hot and humid versus hot and humid!
It’s like comparing the climate of Las Vegas with the climate of Miami. The temperatures can be about the same while the climates are vastly different. Temperatures alone simply don’t tell you that.
Nothing about temperature, especially when converted to “anomalies”, is fit for purpose. It’s all based on “TRADITION”, that’s all we’ve had for mupteen hundreds of years so By Jumminy that’s what we should be using today!
The climate science discipline today reminds me of Tevye in “Fiddler on the Roof”. “It was good enough for our forefathers so it ought to be good enough for us”. It doesn’t matter if there is a better way of doing things – let Tradition prevail!
As I read this my mind time-traveled back 7 years, to an article written by Anthony Watts:
Study: UHI in Hong Kong accounts for most ‘warming’ since 1970 • Watts Up With That?
That’s in the USA
For most of the rest of the world the vast majority of available temperature readings back to 1880 are urban only.