The Guardian Is Wrong: Cities Are Hotter Because of the UHI Effect, Not Increased CO₂

In The Guardian’s op-ed, “World’s major cities hit by 25% leap in extremely hot days since the 1990s,” asserts that global warming has caused a sharp rise in the number of extremely hot days in cities worldwide, citing an International Institute for Environment and Development analysis that claims urban residents from London to Tokyo now experience 25 percent more hot days each year than they did in the 1990s. The claims are highly misleading if not outright false. While cities worldwide have in fact gotten warmer, carbon dioxide increases from the burning fossil fuels are not to blame, rather data strongly suggests that the significant rise in measured temperatures in and around major cities is Urban Heat Island (UHI) effect in response to population growth and development.

The article quotes scientists as saying, “Global heating caused by fossil fuel burning is making every heatwave more intense and more likely. Extreme heat is likely to have caused the early death of millions of people over the past three decades, with elderly and poor people in fast-growing cities most deeply affected.”

One telling moment comes in The Guardian article itself, where researchers concede that “failing to adapt will condemn millions of city dwellers to increasingly uncomfortable and even dangerous conditions because of the urban heat island effect.” Precisely. It is the UHI effect, not CO₂, that drives the city heat trends.

The Guardian’s narrative collapses under scrutiny, because it ignores the UHI effect. Cities are not thermometers for the planet. They are microclimates dominated by concrete, asphalt, and glass which trap heat and bias local temperature readings upward. Peer-reviewed research by John Christy, Ph.D. and Roy Spencer, Ph.D., published in the Journal of Applied Meteorology and Climatology shows that urbanization is a major driver of observed warming at city weather stations. Their research found that UHI contributed to 22 percent of the raw observed warming trend on average, and up to 65 percent at suburban and urban stations. When examining rural stations, the effect nearly vanishes. This demonstrates that much of the increase in urban temperatures is the UHI, not global climate change. This is vividly illustrated in Figures 1 and 2 below.

Figure 1: comparison of summer UHI effects for the United States in 1850 and 2023

Figure 2: comparison of summer UHI effects for Europe in 1850 and 2023


A second recent analysis from Spencer  analysis reinforces this point. In his review of ~400 airport (WBAN) weather stations and over 2,000 cooperative observer sites across the U.S., Spencer found that the hottest summer days have warmed by only about 1.2°F in the last 40 years. In contrast, the greatest warming has occurred in nighttime minimum temperatures, strongly linked to the growth of impervious surfaces such as roads and buildings. In other words, the data show that the warmest days—the very ones The Guardian insists are becoming intolerable—have barely changed at all. Spencer concludes that “contrary to what we have been told, there has been very little warming of the hottest summer days averaged across the U.S. in the last 40 years.”

This finding is critical. The Guardian claims that extreme heat is spiraling upward, but the observational record shows that the real shift is in overnight lows, driven by urbanization. The daytime extremes that matter most for heatwaves have barely budged. The paper’s entire thesis—that fossil fuels are making the world’s hottest days dramatically worse is undermined by empirical data.

The Guardian also ignores historical context. The United States endured far worse heat extremes during the 1930s Dust Bowl, when heatwaves set enduring records across the Plains. In Europe, the 1540 megadrought remains unmatched in severity. Today’s urban-centered warming is small in comparison, and largely a reflection of the spread of impervious infrastructure.

Even the health alarmism in The Guardian’s story is false. Research, like this Lancet study, uniformly confirms that cold weather kills more people than hot weather. As a result, as Climate at a Glance: Temperature Related Deaths shows the modest warming experienced over the past 150 years, has on net reduced temperature-related mortality dramatically. The Guardian prefers to trumpet heat deaths – deaths which could be ameliorated with proper hydration, housing, and air-conditioning – while ignoring the larger, historically persistent, risk of death from cold and the decline in deaths from cold during this period of slight warming.

Urban warming is not a sign of a “global climate crisis,” despite The Guardian’s attempt to portray it as such. What people need is more accurate reporting about the causes of rising urban temperatures, and for media outlets, like The Guardian, highlight tangible, direct interventions to prevent both heat and cold related deaths.

Rather than fighting “climate change, cities need better design and reliable, affordable energy for cooling—not restrictions on hydrocarbon use, which won’t impact the outside temperature, but will make it harder to keep people warm and cool.

Originally published at Climate Realism

5 27 votes
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

49 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
October 6, 2025 6:13 pm

Cities Are Hotter Because of the UHI Effect, Not Increased CO₂
____________________________________________________

Winters are warmer at least here in Milwaukee they are.

Is that due to CO₂? Maybe, maybe not.

Bryan A
October 6, 2025 6:17 pm

One thing is absolutely certain. Those red hot spots correlate 100% with Cities and Urban Centers.
Seattle
Portland
SF Bay Area
Sacramento
Stockton
Los Angeles/San Diego metroplex
Las Vegas
Phoenix
Albuquerque
Salt Lake City
Chicago
Detroit
Miami
NY,NY
Every Major City or Metroplex bright red with heat (with the exception of NY and LA which are the hottest Purple and Violet respectively). Classic UHI signature.

Reply to  Bryan A
October 7, 2025 7:57 am

Here is the Global Warming of Vermont during the past 40 years

GLOBAL WARMING IN VERMONT; very little in summer, somewhat more in winter, based on 40 years of NOAA station data
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/global-warming-in-vermont
By Willem Post. 
.
The beautiful graphs are by Willis Eschenbach. See URL
.
Summer
Each year has peak temperatures during the summer months June, July, August. The below graph shows those peak temperatures in Vermont, for about 40 years.
 
Those temperatures were measured by the weather stations in Vermont of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, NOAA
 
Vermont has four weather stations; Burlington, St Johnsbury, Castleton and Windsor.
New Hampshire also has four stations
 
The peak temperatures increased by 1.5 F over 40 years, or 0.0375 F per year.
 
Almost all people cannot sense the difference of 77 F and 78.5 F
.
Winter
A similar graph shows the minimum temperatures during the months of December, January, February
 
The minimum temperatures increased by 4.2 F over 40 years, or 0.1 F per year. Most older Vermonters agree, winters in Vermont have been getting warmer.
Heating demand is driven by temperature difference, which was about (65 F, indoor – 9.8 F, outdoor = 55.2 F) in 1980, and became (65 F, indoor – 14 F outdoor) = 51 F in 2020
At present, it takes 7.6% less Btu for space heating a house than 40 years ago. 
.
Vermonters Being Screwed/Impoverished by Climate Idiots
Already-struggling, over-taxed, over-regulated Vermonters, in a low/near-zero, real-growth Vermont economy, would be required to spend at least $1.5 billion per year (during high inflation and high interest times), starting in January 2023, for the next 27 years, to maybe reduce Vermont CO2 emissions to the 2050 target of the VT Comprehensive Energy Plan.
 
That extreme hardship spending would have ZERO impact on temperatures in Vermont, which is a near-invisible pinprick on a world map.
 
Vermont’s best approach is to be as energy efficient as economically feasible regarding:
 
1) Highly sealed/insulated housing
2) High-mileage gasoline vehicles
3) Closing down the less-than-25%-efficient, tree-burning power plants (the energy equivalent of 3 out 4 trees is wasted), such as McNeil and Ryegate.
Tree-burning power plants and heating plants/stoves are major contributors to Vermont’s CO2 and ground level air pollution from sub-micron particles, which are as toxic as those of coal burning, and most harmful to people, especially pregnant women, children, elderly, and those with cardio/vascular ailments.
.
The UK Connected with Europe
 
About 8100 years ago, the UK was connected to Europe with a narrow land bridge
There was a land slide off the Norwegian coast, which created a Tsunami, and the land bridge was gone
The image shows no North Sea and no Channel about 30,000 years ago, before the ice started melting
doggerland_530.jpg
 
The Rhine River ran through it
The Thames was a tributary
The Isle of Wight is a left-over part of that narrow land bridge

Bryan A
Reply to  wilpost
October 7, 2025 10:20 am

1.5°F that must be the Political Climate Tipping Point where most Democrats turn Feral and start displaying their natural crazy tendencies

Reply to  Bryan A
October 8, 2025 1:23 pm

That’s Celsius but they wouldn’t know the difference.

Reply to  AGW is Not Science
October 8, 2025 4:14 pm

In the article, the units are Fahrenheit.

ResourceGuy
October 6, 2025 6:18 pm

Getting it wrong is big business in the climate crusades and there are many participants and facilitators.

Tom Halla
October 6, 2025 6:18 pm

There is also the effect of egregiously badly sited reporting stations exaggerating UHI. As in adjacent to airport taxiways, right in the jet exhaust.

Reply to  Tom Halla
October 7, 2025 12:35 am

The weather station are not located in jet engine exhaust. They are located near the runways to provide temperature, relative humidity, and wind speed and direction data. These data are used to determine the speed of the plane for lift off.

Reply to  Harold Pierce
October 7, 2025 1:01 am

They are used for meteorological purposes.

Do you really think a Dreamliner cares about the difference in temperature between a rural location and a UHI affected runway?

Reply to  HotScot
October 7, 2025 2:32 am

Air temperature, relative humidity, and air pressure determine the density of the air, which effects the lift available for the air plane. Wind speed and direction
are also taking into account, especially any cross winds.
An air plane usual takes off into the wind since rush of the air over the wing increases lift.

I’m just quoting what I saw on the TV about factors effecting the take off of an air plane and the procedures that pilots execute before take off.

Reply to  Harold Pierce
October 7, 2025 7:49 am

Weather measuring stations used to report national weather conditions are the domain of the MET Office.

80% of them are in junk class 4&5 with an error margin of anything between 2C and 5C.

I daresay major airports (certainly in the UK) rely on their own weather measuring and forecasting instruments.

A friend of mine is a retired Jumbo jet pilot and pilot instructor. He tells me any large passenger aircraft has its own instrumentation, and no pilot would rely on MET office data. Which makes sense as they can’t drag a Stevenson screen behind the plane.

Reply to  Harold Pierce
October 8, 2025 1:26 pm

Shouldn’t that be the rush of air UNDER the wing?

bobpjones
Reply to  HotScot
October 7, 2025 3:07 am

Warm air is less dense than cold. Density has a significant impact on lift characteristics of aircraft. In extreme circumstances could limit the number of passengers.

Reply to  bobpjones
October 7, 2025 7:54 am

You are most certainly not going to reliably get that information from a Stevenson screen within the boundaries of an airport, potentially subject to the hot exhaust gases from large passenger aircraft.

MarkW
Reply to  HotScot
October 7, 2025 9:36 am

The best place to measure the air temperature over the runway, is not next to the runway?

Pilots need to know what the runway temperatures are, not the temperature in a pristine field miles from the runway.

oeman50
Reply to  Tom Halla
October 7, 2025 4:48 am

I have my own thermometer at my house (that I have verified vs. a lab grade thermometer) that consistently runs about 5F higher than the local airport temperature. I live in the city, surrounded by streets, sidewalks and traffic. So yes, my experience confirms that higher temperatures are measured at the airport.

mleskovarsocalrrcom
October 6, 2025 7:49 pm

UN’s Agenda 21 (is it called 30 now?) calls for increased density in housing which will obviously increase the UHI. Maybe they need to decentralize the people to save the planet?

Reply to  mleskovarsocalrrcom
October 8, 2025 1:31 pm

I’d put that in their suggestion box – increase suburban sprawl to save the planet! 😆

October 6, 2025 8:43 pm

1910 to 2024 Temperature Comparison of Three Australian East Coast Cities
Sydney, Newcastle (located 142 km to the north), and Wollongong (located 77 km to the south). Note the similarity in temperatures up to 1950, followed by a distinct divergence afterward, likely due to the post–World War II immigration surge, which attracted many more people to Sydney and its surrounding suburbs.

CITY-ANNUAL-MEAN-TEMPERATURE-COMPARISONAN
Reply to  John B
October 6, 2025 10:44 pm

Would be good to look at the population of those regions over that time.

Some numbers found for Sydney Metropolitan area

  • In 1900, the population was approximately 168,994.
  • In 1950, the population was 1,689,940.
  • In 2024, the population was estimated to be around 5,185,000.
Reply to  John B
October 6, 2025 11:23 pm

Is the temperature increase in Sydney due the to the UHI effect or to an “adjustment and homogenization” by the BoM?

Reply to  Harold Pierce
October 6, 2025 11:51 pm

Observation House is in the middle of the loop road feeding the Harbour Bridge. Traffic can be very heavy at times. Also in a garden area enclosed by a brick wall.. ie , it is a really, really BAD site for anything but “climate propaganda”

The whole of Sydney CBD has undergone massive growth and huge buildings have sprung up all over the place.

The suburbs to the west of the CBD, where the hot westerly winds come from, have change from farmland and open space only 50-60 years ago to dense sprawling suburbia, with nice warm tile roofs and lots of roads and tarmac etc etc

It would be absolutely amazing if Sydney Observatory Hill did not show a considerable amount of urban warming.

Reply to  Harold Pierce
October 7, 2025 1:06 am

Or, per second digital thermometers.

Reply to  Harold Pierce
October 7, 2025 1:48 am

BoM observations of weather stations on their website are as they were recorded and not adjusted. Homogenisation is done later for the ACORN temperature series. But there have been many moves within the grounds of Observation Hill and nearby environmental effects, such as the completion of the Sydney Harbour Bridge in the 1930s, a tollway feeder into the city and, as you suggest, digital temperature sensors, which would effect Sydney, Newcastle and Wollongong temperature series at about the same time.

Reply to  John B
October 7, 2025 1:53 am

Sydney Observatory Hill.

Reply to  John B
October 7, 2025 8:49 am

You should defiantly check out:

https://extremeweatherwatch.com/cities/sydney

There is displayed much weather and climate data.

Scroll down to the end and click on:

“Average Temperature By Year”

There is displayed a table of Tmax and Tmin data from 1859. At the top of the page is there is: Select City” box. Type in the name of a city. If the data is NOAA’s data base, the city name will appear below the box. Click on it to get the data. the Tmax and Tmin data are displayed in table. If there is no data in NOAA’s data base, the city name will not appear below the box.

BTW: I once went to the BoM website seeking data on Alice Springs. I clicked on a selection and there appeared a bar graph with red bars for the average temperature by decade. Do you know how to access this bar graph?

Reply to  Harold Pierce
October 8, 2025 2:17 pm

YES.

John Hultquist
October 6, 2025 9:35 pm

If warming is caused by Carbon Dioxide it would be global (as in global warming). Claiming something only happens in cities means it isn’t global and not caused by the rather uniformly dispersed plant food.

MarkW
Reply to  John Hultquist
October 7, 2025 9:39 am

Global influences do not negate short term regional variations.

Reply to  MarkW
October 9, 2025 3:23 am

True, but when “regional” is “all in cities,” that’s clearly a “local” issue as opposed to one “caused by climate change.”

I get what you’re saying. Most of the current increase in the “average” temperature is in the northern hemisphere. The Climate Pseudo-scientists attempt to dismiss the MWP as “not being ‘global'” based on the notion that most of the warming was supposedly in the northern hemisphere (calling it “regional warming” 🙄) Yet there mouths aren’t flapping about the same thing now, are they?!

conrad ziefle
October 6, 2025 10:05 pm

They always very cleverly say since XXXX year, which implies a linear increase over the time since then, but very rarely is that so. Often these things are cyclical, and if you cherry-pick your year of comparison, you can make it look really bad. Also you can’t base anything on the urban areas. They are hotter because the asphalt, concrete, stone , steel all capture and retain heat more than a forest or nature environment.

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  conrad ziefle
October 7, 2025 7:00 am

They picked the 1850-1880 time frame to start those graphs.
Turns out CO2 was at its lowest point in the19th century during that span of time and temperatures were the coldest in the 19th century.

Reply to  Sparta Nova 4
October 9, 2025 3:28 am

Yes they essentially treat the Little Ice Age, an ANOMOLOUSLY COLD period, as if it is “normal.”

Which of course it is not. NOR WAS IT A ‘GOOD’ CLIMATE. It was a HORRIBLE climate.

October 6, 2025 10:35 pm

I bet the Guardian has not a single jounalist writing BS who lives near the arctic circle. That would be refreshing news, someone complaining about elevated temperatures (the obvious effects of UHI) while for most of the year being prone of freezing to death in his neighbourhood.

Reply to  varg
October 6, 2025 11:52 pm

You mean like the Canadian government ? 😉

MarkW
Reply to  bnice2000
October 7, 2025 9:41 am

I wouldn’t be surprised to find out that all of their reporters are based in cities near the US border.

October 7, 2025 12:22 am

Harold The Organic Chemist Says:
ATTN: Everyone
RE: URL Change

In yesterday’s “Open Thread” I posted this URL:

https://extremeweatherwatch.com/cities/adelaide/weather

has been changed to:

https://extremeweatherwatch.com/cities/adelaide

This website displays weather and climate data from 1887 to 2024 from NOAA’s data base.

Near the end of home page, there is a table listing the number days in increasing temperature ranges.

At the bottom of the home page there is a link to:

“average weather by year”

At this auxiliary website:

https://extremeweatherwatch.com/cities/adelaide/average-temperature-by-year.

the Tmax and Tmin data are displayed in a table. In the chart (See below) are plotted the Tmax and Tmin data. The chart was prepared for me by son. Note the increase in temperatures near the right end of the plot.

The home page for this website is:

https://extremeweatherwatch.com

On the home page are links in light blue to many sites for the acquisition and display of its weather and climate data.

Reply to  Harold Pierce
October 7, 2025 12:45 am

Here is the chart for Adelaide

adelaide
1saveenergy
Reply to  Harold Pierce
October 7, 2025 1:00 am

That chart is terrifyingly normal !!

Can’t you ‘adjust it’ so it slopes up at > 30°, so we can all be really scared ??

Mr.
Reply to  1saveenergy
October 7, 2025 4:07 am

Just more evidence that nothing much ever happens in Adelaide 🤓

Reply to  1saveenergy
October 7, 2025 9:11 am

Actually, there is a slight increase in temperatures near the end of the plots.

Reply to  Harold Pierce
October 7, 2025 9:04 am

I forgot to post this instruction:
If you click on the chart, it will expand and become clear. Click on the “X” in the circle to return to the comment text. The chart was prepared for me by my son.

October 7, 2025 4:33 am

One only need look at the separate Tmax and Tmin from the USCRN reference stations that were sited to insure UHI did not create a bias. Increased growing season due to night time temperatures. Little to no growth in Tmax.

How can CO2 be a global effect when rural stations have little warming but a few hundred miles away, cities can be warming at a horrendous rate? UHI is the answer. Bias has lots of discussion concerning older temperatures, but I see little attention in papers about adjusting current temps for UHI.

Reply to  Jim Gorman
October 7, 2025 9:20 am

I wonder if the data from these weather stations can be used to convince Gov. Gavin N. of CA and Gov. Kathy of NY that there is no global warming caused by CO2, and they should cancel their draconian climate action agendas?

Reply to  Jim Gorman
October 9, 2025 3:34 am

The “adjustments” always fit “the narrative.”

Sparta Nova 4
October 7, 2025 6:56 am

Not sure why anyone would read the Guardian let alone believe what they’ve read.

October 7, 2025 7:53 am

Minimal Temperature Change due to CO2: The climate is not any different, even though, atmosphere CO2 increased from 280 ppm in 1850 to 420 ppm in 2025, 50% in 175 years. During that time, world surface temps increased by at most 1.5 C +/- 0.25 C, of which: 
.
1) Urban heat islands account for about 65% (0.65 x 1.5 = 0.975 C), such as about 700 miles from north of Portland, Maine, to south of Norfolk, Virginia, forested in 1850, now covered with heat-absorbing human detritus, plus the waste heat of fuel burning. Japan, China, India, Europe, etc., have similar heat islands
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2025/05/16/live-at-1-p-m-eastern-shock-climate-report-urban-heat-islands-responsible-for-65-of-global-warming/
2) CO2 accounts for less than 0.3 C, with the rest from
3) Long-term, inter-acting cycles, such as coming out of the Little Ice Age, 
4) Earth surface volcanic activity, and other changes, such as from increased agriculture, deforestation, especially in the Tropics, etc.
.
BTW, the 1850 surface temp measurements were only in a few locations and mostly inaccurate, +/- 0.5 C. 
The 1979-to-present temp measurements (46 years) cover most of the earth surface and are more accurate, +/- 0.25 C, due to NASA satellites.
Any graphs should show accuracy bands.
The wiggles in below image are due to plants rotting late in the year, emitting CO2, plants growing early in the year, consuming CO2, mostly in the Northern Hemisphere. See URL
https://gml.noaa.gov/ccgg/about.html
.
Here are four articles attesting to the small global warming role of CO2 in the atmosphere

Eight Taiwanese Engineers Determine Climate Sensitivity to a 300 ppm CO2 Increase Is ‘Negligibly Small’
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/eight-taiwanese-engineers-determine-climate-sensitivity-to-a-300
By Kenneth Richard
.
The Fairy Tale of The CO2 Paradise Before 1850…A Look at The Real Science
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/the-fairy-tale-of-the-co2-paradise-before-1850-a-look-at-the-real
By Fred F. Mueller
 .
Achieving ‘Net Zero by 2050’ Reduces Temps by 0.28 C Costing Tens of $TRILLIONS
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/achieving-net-zero-by-2050-reduces-temps-by-0-28-c-costing-tens
By Kenneth Richard    
.
German Researcher: Doubling Of Atmospheric CO2 Causes Only 0.24°C Of Warming …Practically Insignificant
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/german-researcher-doubling-of-atmospheric-co2-causes-only-0-24-c
By P Gosselin on 19. November 2024

Bob
October 7, 2025 3:57 pm

Very nice Anthony and you didn’t take into account the shenanigans of the Met counting statistics from imaginary stations. The Met and others.

Verified by MonsterInsights