By Joe Bastardi
New York City’s Central Park had highs of 91 and 90 on June 11 and 12.
Newark airport: 97,96
LaGuardia: 96,98
JFK: which is closest to the ocean, 95,93
What is going on here? How is it that directly in the heart of NYC, where it is coolest, and what does this tell us about “climate change.”
This is a map of NYC on the morning of the 13th. The heat wave is over. It’s cooler to the northwest and warmer to the southeast, as you would expect in an NW flow with a new air mass coming in.
So, after a night of cooling, it’s cooler in open areas away from the city.
So why was NYC so much cooler in the heat of the day?
TREES. Lots of trees. Central Park is comparatively untouched in terms of foliage compared to America 250 years ago. It’s built up all around there of course, but it does show how even a small area of woods and foliage can impact temperatures
There were no airports, of course, 250 years ago. I suspect the areas with airports were wooded. Well, they are not now. Quite the opposite. And this is what Anthony Watts discusses in his ideas on the “siting” of the thermometer. Surround them with concrete, chop down every tree around so there is nothing but sun beating down on what is nothing like it was, 50 years ago, never mind 250 years ago, and what do you think is going to happen?
Which is why the idea that trees make no difference (planting more, as I have been an advocate of, simply because I am an old greenie) is nonsense. If you are paranoid about CO2, and it seems a lot of younger people are with their so-called “climate anxiety,” trees not only are a cooling agent in extreme heat, but a great way to get rid of CO2. Many countries, many states, are net-CO2 sinks (they get rid of more than they emit) because of foliage. I mean, I don’t care about that aspect. I do care about the fact that in this hot shot, Central Park is proving my point about how the only man-made aspect of a heat wave like this, compared to 60 years ago, is all the areas we have chopped down.
Example: July 3, 1966
Central Park: 103
Newark: 105
La Guardia: 107
JFK: 104
First of all, that is truly hot and puts into perspective that a heat wave like this was putting our grid in peril, when it could not hold a candle to what happened in this example or others I can pull out. And we are in real trouble with a grid that can’t handle the increasing demand. While this is not the subject of this matter, Steve Goreham was speaking loudly about what was going on a few years ago with people who seemingly were oblivious to the threat this posed to our country, almost as if they wanted it to crash. It is getting attention now, but let’s hope it’s not too late. Three-to-five-day heat waves in the early part of summer should not threaten our grid, not because it’s getting so hot, but for other reasons. And my cynical self, after talking to Steve, makes me think it has not been an accident.
But it is this way. I had him on my ill-fated radio show a couple of years ago and was rattled when he was done.
But back to this problem.
If the foliage around NYC were the same as it was when America came to be, temperatures would not be as high. You can see the change in the last 60 years. The average difference was a bit over two degrees from the airports to the city. Now it’s close to five. The trees keep it cooler,
Now, suppose 60 years ago you had as many thermometers in wooded areas as you do in the open areas now. And you wanted to compute and average the high temperature within 25 miles of NYC. What do you think would happen if you had equal representation?
Is it man chopping down trees and pouring concrete? Yes.
Is it from increased CO2? No.
If you want to argue it is, then you must admit that the trees in Central Park are removing the CO2 that is making other places hotter.
Anyone on the major meteo media outlets addresses things like this, they will tell you 100 million people are in danger because of what is the kind of heat that should happen from time to time in the summer, but again, they do not show the bigger picture.
My point here is that many factors are at play in what one sees during any given weather event, let alone across the entire climate. If you believe that CO2 is the cause-of-all-evil person, then you have to admit that trees are its kryptonite — both getting rid of it and keeping it cooler.
Remember, in 1966, the song that dominated the charts as summer wore on was “Summer in the City.”
Opening line: Hot town, summer in the city.
And for good reason. When it got hot, it was truly hot. The heat threshold is lower today, and it likely has something to do with the shape we are in as Americans. The NWS has lowered its threshold, meaning what farmers put up with every day is now dangerous for the average American in their eyes.
You know, sometimes you have to take the advice of a good old-fashioned liberal rock ‘n’ roller, John Mellencamp, in “Minutes to Memories.”
“Suck it up, tough it out, and be the best you can.” Maybe that’s good advice for the next 250 years to move forward, weather, climate, or whatever.
And plant more trees. It’s good for the environment.
When I was a kid we had no AC and the hot weather was just something you dealt with while you did whatever you did. Now I have AC and if it’s really hot out I go inside and my tolerance of the hot weather is way lower, the climate changes is the one I created not the environment changing
And your tolerance for hot weather is less because you go from 72 inside to 92 outside, a 20 degree difference. If you were to go from 82 inside to 92 outside, it wouldn’t feel as hot.
BTW I grew up on a farm; throwing bales of hay to the top of the barn. I have experienced hot.
Me too.
That’s was exactly my point, by the way I spent my youth working around industrial coffee roasters, I used to go out in the searing heat on an asphalt parking lot to cool off. I know hot.
“Luxury!”
Congrats on 250 years. This got me to thinking, we have a major anniversary coming up in 2027, what was the climate like back in 927? As a nation rose was it pure coincidence that the medieval warm period was well under way?
No contemporary sources from the time speak of any climate crisis.
I wonder how many of todays youths know that
In the UK, net zero. Put it this way, no media in Britain will utter a word on it.
A celebration of the 1100th anniversary of England’s birth under King Æthelstan in 927
Education is now pushing Orwellian rewritten history. And here’s how…
Stonehenge was built by black people, a new children’s history book has claimed.
Readers of Brilliant Black British History, by the Nigerian-born British author Atinuke, are told the neolithic monument in Wiltshire was built while Britain was a ‘black country’.
The book, which is aimed at children aged seven and above, also tells readers that ‘every single British person comes from a migrant’ and that the ‘very first Britons were black’.
Scotland is not immune
Children’s book portrays Picts as black
Black monks and villagers feature in title showing Scotland’s history as multicultural
And on it goes…
Fury as England World Cup flags banned
Sadiq Khan shuns England flag – and embraces Pride instead
Leukophobia is the new black.
[“ ‘every single British person comes from a migrant’ and that the ‘very first Britons were black’.”]
Well, yes, that’s correct;
Modern humans evolved from Africa; all our ancestors evolved from a black dwarf called ‘Lucy’ (hominin species Australopithecus afarensis) ~ 3.2 million years ago.
During the last glacial period, there was no permanent population. Hunter-gatherers started to populate Britain as the ice sheets retreated 15,000 years ago, Cheddar Man (~10,000 years) was black with negroid features & we still retain around 10% of his population’s DNA.
The people most related to modern Britons (the Beaker People) arrived as migrants from Central Europe Approx. 4,500 years ago, they were farmers; since then, we’ve had Celts, Phoenicians, Romans, Jutes, Saxons, Vikings, Normans, Spanish, Dutch, Indochinese, East & West Africans, all adding DNA into the gene pool.
We are ALL descended from migrants.
Sorry, should have added a few links …
https://www.nhm.ac.uk/discover/first-britons.html
https://www.thearchaeologist.org/blog/mesolithic-skeleton-known-as-cheddar-man-shares-the-same-dna-with-english-teacher-of-history
Astounding to see that some people on here are dumb enough to think we are not descended from evolving migrants !! Even if you believe the Adam & Eve story, their descendants were migrants.
The entire black & white population of the USA are all descendants of migrants; the original inhabitants came from eastern Asia.
Even out the misery. Add a few steam vents to Central Park.
Add more roof-top greenery. I can supply Ponderosa Pine seeds. Maybe Mock Orange {mine, now blooming, are Philadelphus lewisii} would be a better choice. 🙂
Even out the misery.
That sounds positively Milibandian.
It’s always the “hottest” or the “coldest” for someplace in the world and the alarmist will let you know when it’s the hottest at that location while the MSM will trumpet it.
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) of the warming, such as the UHI of 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
.
According to John Clauser, 2022 Nobel Physics Price recipient, “Atmospheric CO2 and methane have less than 0.25 to 0.75 C effect on atmosphere temperatures. The policies government have been implementing are totally unnecessary and should be eliminated. The dominant process is “the cloud-sunlight-reflexivity thermostat” mechanism. Clouds are bright white, reflect 90% of the sunlight back into space, are the most crucial aspect of the climate system. Oceans are 70% of the Earth surface. The Pacific Ocean alone is 30%. The average cloud cover for the Earth is 67%; about 55% over land and 72 – 75% over oceans.”
People keep on mentioning CO2, a weak GHG, a trace gas at 0.043%, as if it is important.
It is only important, because the IPCC says so, based on its own science.
It is only important, because moneyed elites saw an opportunity to have long-term, lucrative, no-risk tax avoidance.
Each day the sun comes up the world “breathes in and breathes out” as the sun goes down.
Without the huge evaporation/condensation energy transport from the rainforests in the tropics, by year-round air and sea currents, much of the higher latitudes of the northern hemisphere would be uninhabitable. The same with the southern hemisphere. It is a good thing heat of vaporization is so large that the rising water vapor easily overcomes other factors that would hinder its upward motion. By comparison, the presence of CO2 is of minor importance.
Rainforests are the “lungs” of the world. Lungs means huge evaporation of water in the rainforests of the tropics on a year-round basis and then warm air and water vapor transport. Clearcutting destroys part of that process, because what “regrows” are grazing animals, heavily fertilized crops, and modern human detritus. At future COPs, they should be discussing the ways of restoring tropical rainforests and set restoration targets.
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
& I get 86’d.
Harold The Organic Chemist Says:
ATTN: wilpost
RE: CO2 Does Not and Can Not Cause Any Recent Warming Of The Atmosphere.
Shown in the chart (See below) are plots of the mean seasonal temperatures and a plot of the annual mean temperatures at the Furnace Creek weather station in Death Valley from 1922 to 2001. In 1922 the concentration of CO2 in dry air was ca.
306 ppmv (0.60 g CO2/cu. m. of air), and 2001 it had increased to 371 ppmv
(0.73 g CO2/cu. m. of air), but the was no corresponding increase in air temperature at this remote desert. The simple explanation for no increase in air temperature at arid desert is that there too little CO2 in the air to absorb enough out-going IR light to warm up the large mass of the desert atmosphere.
The physical explanation for the lack of warming in the desert air in spite of the increasing concentration of CO2 is due the “saturation effect” of the absorbed
IR light by CO2. This saturation effect is explained in this paper:
“The Saturation of the Infrared Absorption by Carbon Dioxide in the Atmosphere”
by Dieter Schildknecht
URL: https://arixv.org/pdf/2004.00708v1
URL: https://arxiv.org/labs/2004.00708.
You should also check: https://climateataglance/carbon-dioxide-saturation-in-the-atmosphere
The threshold for the saturation effect for CO2 is 300 ppmv (0.59 g CO2/cu. m. of air) which occurred in 1920. What this means is thatthe concentration of CO2 in air above this threshold will not result in an increase in air temperature.
At the Mauna Loa Obs. in Hawaii, the concentration of CO2in dry air is currently 432 ppmv. One cubic meter of this air has a mass of 1,290 g and contains a mere 0.85 g of CO2 at STP. You should note and never ever forget how little CO2 there is in the
air. The cited papers are fatally flawed. CO2 is no molecule with magical powers. The molecule with great power is H2O. The claims by the corrupt IPCC and the collaborating unscrupulous scientists (aka welfare queens in white coats cf. Rustum Roy of Penn State Univ.) that CO2 causes global warming and climate change are fabrications and lies.
The chart was taken from the website of the late Australian John L. Daly’s website:
“Still Waiting For Greenhouse” available at: http://www.john-daly.com. From the home page go to end and click on “Station Temperature Data”. On the “World Map” click of “North American” and click on “Pacific”. Finally scroll down and click on “Death Valley”. Use the back arrow to display the list of stations. Clicking on the back arrow again to display the “World Map”. John Daly found over 200 hundred stations that showed no warming up to 2002. If everyone learned of John Daly’s website all this nonsense about CO2 causing global warming would vanish in an instant, and Australia would be saved from the draconian climate agenda of
Premier Anthony A. and the Canberra Climate Cartel.
Finally, I mention that the simple mechanism for warming of the air: Sunlight warms the earth’s surface. Air contacts the warm surface and by conduction heats up. The warm air rises up and by convection warms up the atmosphere.
NB: If you click on the chart, it will expand and become clear. Click on the “X” in the circle to contact the the chart and return to Comments.
I asked Copilot AI, “Is there such a thing as “Earth’s temperature?”
“Not as a single physical temperature.
Earth has:
So scientists define a global mean surface temperature (GMST) — a weighted average of millions of measurements. It’s a statistical indicator, not a literal thermometer reading.”
I wonder if we should be reporting a “United States mean surface temperature” on the evening news … Might be fun … but useless.
Nobody agrees on that GMST value.
One wonders why they bother with a wholly imaginary metric?
There is no such thing as a global temperature, be it mean or generous.
What about a Blue Meany global temp?
It’s not even a metric for temperature. It is a STATISTICAL DESCRIPTOR of the data set. It is not a measurement. It is totally non-physical. Climate science doesn’t even evaluate the data set for skewness or kurtosis before calculating the mean.
Since the temperatures in the two hemispheres represent two different data sets with different variances you get a multi-modal distribution, even when using anomalies. Anomalies don’t fix the different variances. Is there anyone in climate science that understands that the mean of a multi-modal distribution is physically useless? The two modes can even swap positions between left and right and the mean won’t know it. One can go up and the other down and the mean won’t know it.
If the distribution is skewed where the mode and the mean are different then the MODE is the most likely value to appear – but climate science doesn’t use the statistical descriptor known as the mode.
Variance *is* a metric for the uncertainty of the mean and any average of variables with different variances should be weighted so the least uncertain values carry more weight than the more uncertain values – but climate science won’t do this.
For climate science all temperature measurements can be jammed together and form a random, Gaussian distribution where the mean is a highly accurate and meaningful measurement and all measurement uncertainty is also random, Gaussian, and cancels.
It does seem absurd to try and impose a static condition on a dynamic, chaotic system.
It’s not absurd to a mathematician or statistician who believes that numbers is just numbers.
It is not absurd for bookkeeping purposes. The absurdity is insisting that it implies more than an expectation.
We call many of our observations Laws of Nature, but again, that is a human concept crudely applied to a system that is far more complex. Like taxonomy in Biology, it makes an orderly discussion of the object possible, but in no way describes a rigid structure.
It would be better to report an enthalpy value. That better describes the heat involved.
Consensus on answers is tough when there is no consensus on the questions.
It depends. Here in Salt lake City there are far more trees than there were 179 years ago when the LDS Pioneers arrived (and lawns, concrete, asphalt, etc.) Humidity is around 20%. I suspect that the added trees in this case is in part responsible for higher temperatures since they increase surface albedo, increase local humidity through evapotranspiration, and reduce surface airflow.
When I was a kid-mid 1960s-I worked for my old man doing asphalt in the Chicago UHI. No AC at home or in the vehicles, frozen ice water jugs that melted but kept the water cold, and somehow I survived. Now, 60yrs later, I have AC and I can’t take the heat outside anymore when gardening, etc. What I miss, tho, is how the evenings cooled and I could sit with my sweet blonde girlfriend in the twilight. Too soon we get old, too late we get smart. Youth is wasted on the young…but yes, we believed in magic.
At that time, I was basking in the Tennessee sun, mowing lawns and collecting Coke bottles for a bit of cash. Hotter but drier out here in the West, but I still work out in the open, and I still believe in a bit of magic despite the growth of some healthy cynicism.
I was shooting a lot of things with my Daisy BB gun that I shouldn’t have, in rural NW Virginia.
Likewise, though mine was designed to look like an M1 carbine.
I believe one needs a pinch of cynicism to truely appreciate the magic-life can be full of hard knocks and so on, but it’s the magic, baby, that keeps it sweet and keeps things in perspective.
Thanks for the Lovin’ Spoonful memories. Laughed thinking that another of their hits was appropriate for the CO2 faithful – “Do You Believe in Magic”.
Even the Lovin’ Spoonful knew it would work out alright.
But at night it’s a different world
Go out and find a girl
Come on, come on, and dance all night
Despite the heat, it’ll be alright
This one is for the true believers at the MO
If I’m correct, from decades of observations, the max daily temperatures have no trend while min daily temperatures have a positive trend.
How could CO2 have no impact on max temperatures while being a cause of the min temperatures positive trend ? It stays sheltered during the day and comes out at night ?
Because T^4 radiation from the earth is a negative feedback for temperature. T^4 sets a boundary condition on Tmax. You can see this by looking at when Tmax occurs and when it starts to drop. The temperature doesn’t keep climbing until sunset, it starts to drop in the mid-afternoon when Tmax is high enough that T^4 outward radiation offsets the incoming insolation from the sun.
Tmin is based on the exponential decay factor associated with the cooling of the earth. It’s counter-intuitive but if CO2 slows cooling that actually makes the decay factor longer which, in turn, actually fosters the dumping of more heat than a faster cooling decay. You can see that in the primitive image I’ve attached. The heat being dumped is related to the area under the temperature curve. Slower cooling means more area under the curve than faster cooling so the integral (i.e. the heat loss) is larger.
I know that but it is not related to CO2 :
That’s not what’s observed.
———————
———————
These are not exactly correct.
CO2 is *NOT* a heat source. It is a reflector of heat received from other sources. Since it is not a heat source it cannot raise temperature. It can inhibit both cooling and warming but it cannot *cause* cooling and warming in the overall system.
CO2 reflects joules of energy from the sun away from earth and back into space. Therefore, it inhibits warming of the earth during the day. It reflects joules of energy from the earth back to the earth all the time therefore it inhibits cooling.
But it never *adds* joules of energy into the system and therefore cannot cause a temperature rise. Thus it can’t cause a temperature rise during the day or the night.
CO2 can’t push the earth back up the thermal gradient. It can inhibit the earth’s rate of fall down the gradient at night and it can inhibit the earth’s rise up the gradient caused by the sun during the day. But that’s all.
Very nice.
That ` geothermal activity surprised me when I moved to 42 Peck Slip in Manhattan .
The amount of heat expelled to the street by the subway AC is also astounding .
I’m glad I lived across the street from the East River ( estuary ) rather than the broiling core .
Here’s a recent view of the Central Park weather station:
Here’s a view from ~1920:
Quite a change in the surrounding foliage.
Presumably it is a CIMO class 5 site?