Global warming, climate change, all these things are just a dream come true for politicians. I deal with evidence and not with frightening computer models because the seeker after truth does not put his faith in any consensus. The road to the truth is long and hard, but this is the road we must follow. People who describe the unprecedented comfort and ease of modern life as a climate disaster, in my opinion have no idea what a real problem is.
According to a new study, Greenland temperature stations indicate there was an abrupt 2.9°C warming trend from 1922-1932 (10 years) that was almost identical to the 3.1°C warming trend from 1993-2007 (14 years).
Between the two warming periods (identified as WP1 and WP2 in the study) was an overall ~3°C cooling from 1933-1992.
According to a new study, Greenland temperature stations indicate there was an abrupt 2.9°C warming trend from 1922-1932 (10 years) that was almost identical to the 3.1°C warming trend from 1993-2007 (14 years).
Between the two warming periods (identified as WP1 and WP2 in the study) was an overall ~3°C cooling from 1933-1992.
Thus, as the temperature charts from the study illustrate, there has been almost zero net warming across Greenland in the last century.
This temperature trajectory is consistent with the Box (2009) analysis that said, “the annual whole ice sheet 1919–32 warming trend is 33% greater in magnitude than the 1994–2007 warming.”
“The course of the AT [air temperature] anomaly between 1900 and 2015 relative to the reference period (1986–2015) at the stations UPV, ILU, NUK, QAQ and TAS, the 20CRv3 area average for the globe, the Arctic, Greenland as well as 20CRv3 interpolated to WEG_L shows two distinguished WPs [warm periods]. These two periods are observed at all stations and show a continuous increase over more than 5 years. Based on this, we determine WP1 between 1922 and 1932, and WP2 between 1993 and 2007. During WP1, the AT anomaly increased on average by 2.9 °C across stations, while in WP2, it increased by 3.1 °C, though WP2 spans a longer period (14 years compared to 10 years for WP1). The average annual increase for both WPs across all stations is 0.2 °C yr−1.”
Interestingly, the authors estimate Greenland ice sheet (GIS) melt has added just 1.08 cm to global sea levels since 1900. This is too small to justify alarmist narratives about dramatic warming and ice melt contributions to sea level rise.
The mystery is why the corrupt media is attacking the setting up of up state-of-the-art temperature stations with data that can be checked in real time. We will tackle this subject, as well as go over the Crazy Climate News of the Week. Tune in LIVE for the stream at 1 p.m. ET (noon CT) to watch the show and leave your own questions in the chat with host Jim Lakely, panelists H. Sterling Burnett and Linnea Lueken, and our special guest Tony Heller.
The Heartland Institute has issued a report exposing the US government’s official land-based temperature stations as hopelessly corrupt and compromised. The study, conducted by Heartland Senior Fellow Anthony Watts – an update on a previous examination of temperature stations in 2009 – was the subject of a hit-piece by Scott Waldman of E&E News and POLITICO titled “Climate denial group wants to subvert NOAA data with its own: The Heartland Institute seeks to build da nationwide network of temperature-monitoring stations.”
Well, yes we do. And we’re doing it because too many of NOAA’s historic stations are either captured by sprawl and the urban heat-island effect, in such terrible shape that they should not be relied upon for accurate data, or not even operable at all or broken – and in those cases, NOAA just makes a guess as to the temperature. That is problematic, to say the least, since temperature readings from these crappy stations is used to panic the American people, continually, by telling them that last week or this year was “the hottest ever” and that warming is happening dangerously fast.
The mystery is why the corrupt media is attacking the setting up of up state-of-the-art temperature stations with data that can be checked in real time. We will tackle this subject, as well as go over the Crazy Climate News of the Week. Tune in LIVE for the stream at 1 p.m. ET (noon CT) to watch the show and leave your own questions in the chat with host Jim Lakely, panelists H. Sterling Burnett and Linnea Lueken, and our special guest Tony Heller.
The Met Office data goes back to 1884, but yet again the Met Office conveniently ignore the much longer CET series, which shows that February 1779 was actually warmer. This makes a nonsense of their claim that one month’s mild weather has anything to do with “climate”.
And as the CET table below shows, there have been six other Februarys above 7.0C, with none since 1998.
The UK chart also clearly shows that mild Februarys have occurred from time to time throughout the record. It is the absence of extremely cold months in the last decade or two which is largely responsible for the rise in average temperatures.
Given the fact that most of the Met Office’s temperature stations are junk, any claims that last month was a fraction of a degree warmer than, for instance 1945, cannot be treated seriously.
The BBC also talk of floods, yet although last month was much wetter than average, it was a long way from being a record, and there have been several other years with similar amounts of rainfall. It is the same story with winter rainfall as a whole.
Meteorologist finds 96 percent of NOAA temperature stations located in ‘urban heat islands,’ including next to exhaust fans and on ‘blistering-hot rooftops.’
Meteorologist finds 96 percent of NOAA temperature stations located in ‘urban heat islands,’ including next to exhaust fans and on ‘blistering-hot rooftops.’
Failure to maintain that level could lead to several catastrophes, including increased droughts and weather-related disasters, more heat-related illnesses and deaths, and less food and more poverty, according to NASA.
Failure to maintain that level could lead to several catastrophes, including increased droughts and weather-related disasters, more heat-related illnesses and deaths, and less food and more poverty, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) cautions. TheEpoch Times has the story.
After the agreement, global spending on climate-related projects increased exponentially.
In 2021 and 2022, the world’s taxpayers spent, on average, $1.3 trillion each year,according to the nonprofit advisory group Climate Policy Initiative.
That’s more than double the spending rate in 2019 and 2020, which came in at $653 billion per year, and it’s significantly up from the $364 billion per year in 2011 and 2012, the report found.
NOAA’s climate monitoring stations found that the Earth’s average land and ocean surface temperature in 2023 was 1.35 degrees Celsius above the preindustrial average.
“Not only was 2023 the warmest year in NOAA’s 174-year climate record—it was the warmest by far,” said Sarah Kapnick, NOAA’s chief scientist.
But a growing chorus of climate scientists are saying the temperature readings are faulty and that the trillions of dollars pouring in are based on a problem that doesn’t exist.
More than 90 percent of NOAA’s temperature monitoring stations have a heat bias, according to Anthony Watts, a meteorologist, senior fellow for environment and climate at the Heartland Institute, author of climate website Watts Up With That, and director of a study that examined NOAA’s climate stations.
“And with that large of a number, over 90 percent, the methods that NOAA employs to try to reduce this don’t work because the bias is so overwhelming,” Mr. Watts told The Epoch Times.
“The few stations that are left that are not biased because they are, for example, outside of town in a field and are an agricultural research station that’s been around for 100 years … their data gets completely swamped by the much larger set of biased data. There’s no way you can adjust that out.”
He is the principal research scientist at the University of Alabama, the U.S. Science Team leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer (AMSR-E) on NASA’s Aqua satellite, and the recipient of NASA’s Exceptional Scientific Achievement Medal for his work with satellite-based temperature monitoring.
John Shewchuk, a certified consulting meteorologist, said the problems with temperature readings go beyond heat bias. The retired Lt. Col. was an advanced weather officer in the Air Force.
“After seeing many reports about NOAA’s adjustments to the USHCN [U.S. Historical Climatology Network] temperature data, I decided to download and analyze the data myself,” Mr. Shewchuk told The Epoch Times.
“I was able to confirm what others have found. It is obvious that, overall, the past temperatures were cooled while the present temperatures were warmed.”
The urban heat island effect causes higher temperatures in areas where there are more buildings, roads, and other forms of infrastructure that absorb and then radiate the sun’s heat, according to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
The agency estimates that “daytime temperatures in urban areas are 1–7 degrees Fahrenheit higher than temperatures in outlying areas, and nighttime temperatures are about 2–5 degrees Fahrenheit higher.”
Consequently, NOAA requires all its climate observation stations to be located at least 100 feet away from elements such as concrete, asphalt, and buildings.
However, in March 2009, Mr. Watts released a report that showed that 89 percent of NOAA’s stations had heat bias issues due to being located within 100 feet of those elements, and many were located by airport runways.
“We found 68 stations located at wastewater treatment plants, where the process of waste digestion causes temperatures to be higher than in surrounding areas.”
The report concluded that the U.S. temperature record was unreliable, and, because it was considered “the best in the world,” global temperature databases were also “compromised and unreliable.”
Following the report, the U.S. Office of Inspector General (OIG) and the U.S. Government Accountability Office confirmed Mr. Watt’s findings and said NOAA was taking steps to address the issues.
“NOAA acknowledges that there are problems with the USHCN data due to biases introduced by such means as undocumented site relocation, poor siting, or instrument changes,” the OIG report states.
“All of the experts thought that an improved, modernized climate reporting system is necessary to eliminate the need for data adjustments.”
Despite the assurances, Mr. Watts had doubts about NOAA addressing the issues and in April and May of 2022, he and his team revisited many of the same temperature stations they’d observed in 2009.
“There are two main biases in the surface temperature network for the United States, and most likely the world, that I have identified,” Mr. Watts said.
“The biggest bias is the urban heat island effect. What happens is that because heat is retained by the surfaces and released into the air at night, the night’s low temperature is not as low as it could be if the thermometer were outside of town and in a field.”
Over the years, he said, more and more infrastructure has been built up around the thermometer locations, and at night, the asphalt and concrete release the absorbed heat and push up the temperature.
“You can look at any set of climate data, no matter who produces it, and you can see this effect. The low temperatures are trending upward much faster, and the high temperatures are virtually unchanged. But it’s the average temperature that’s being used to track climate change,” Mr. Watts said.
He said that even though both NOAA and NASA claim they can adjust their data to account for the urban heat island effect, the bias is impossible to overcome because the problem impacts 96 percent of surface stations.
He said the few thermometers located at climate stations not experiencing a heat bias show half the rate of warming currently being reported.
On Wednesday, July 25, ABC13 in Houston reported on the city’s temperatures from new data that accounted for the Urban Heat Island effect (UHI) within the city and its surrounding suburbs. The results from the data show that Houston experiences a UHI impact of six degrees Fahrenheit or greater on any given day.
Above: Map showing the UHI effect around the Houston Metropolitan area. From ABC13.
On Wednesday, July 25, ABC13 in Houston reported on the city’s temperatures from new data that accounted for the Urban Heat Island effect (UHI) within the city and its surrounding suburbs. The results from the data show that Houston experiences a UHI impact of six degrees Fahrenheit or greater on any given day.
In the article, ABC13 News acknowledges what The Heartland Institute has long pointed out, the urban heat island effect impacts measured temperatures and people’s lives. They cite an example, saying:
Say the forecast high temperature is 90 degrees. Factor in the additional warmth from the urban heat island, and it could feel like 95 degrees in Rosenberg, 97 in Humble, 98 downtown, or even 99 in Baytown.
The story also notes that the UHI is greater with a broad reach than previously acknowledged, even effecting less densely populated areas.
This finding parallels what was revealed in the 2022 Heartland Institute report Corrupted Climate Stations: The Official U.S. Surface Temperature Record Remains Fatally Flawed which found approximately 96 percent of U.S. temperature stations used to measure climate change fail to meet what the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) considers to be “acceptable” and uncorrupted placement by the agency’s own published standards. The UHI effect, which grows along with the size of cities, creates artificial warming at many long-term temperature stations.
As was found in Houston, weather stations within the UHI effect read higher temperatures, meaning temperatures recorded at these stations are warmer than they would be absent the presence of artifacts of development, like buildings, parking lots, and machinery that have been built up or are in use around them which trap and/or generate heat. From that report, for example, Figure 1 shows a station in rural Dillon, MT that is biased warmer due to its proximity to a sunlit brick wall.
Figure 1: Visible and infrared photos of NOAA MMTS temperature sensor placement near a large sunlit wall and electric power generation plant at Dillon, MT, USHCN Station at Western Montana University. Source: Anthony Watts
The chart below, found on page 17 of the report, shows 30 years of data from NOAA temperature stations in the Continental United States (CONUS). The blue lines show recorded temperatures and the trend from stations that comply with NOAA’s published standards. The yellow lines are temperatures taken from stations that are not compliant with those standards (i.e. near artificial hot spots). The red lines are the “official” adjusted temperature released by NOAA.
Figure 2: From Watts, et al, 2015. Comparisons of 30-year temperature trends for unperturbed and compliant Class 1 and 2 USHCN stations to unperturbed and non-compliant Class 3, 4, and 5 USHCN stations, compared to NOAA final adjusted V2.5 USHCN data in CONUS. Bias at the microsite level (the immediate environment of the sensor) in the unperturbed subset of USHCN stations has a significant effect on the mean temperature (Tmean) trend. Well-sited stations show significantly less warming from 1979 – 2008.
If you look at the blue line in Figure 2 of unperturbed stations that adhere to NOAA’s published standard – ones that are correctly located and free of localized urban heat biases – they display about half the rate of warming compared to perturbed stations that have UHI biases. Extrapolating from the U.S. data, on average, urban heat islands increasethe global surfacetemperature trend by almost 50 percent.
Like the Houston UHI finding, the issue of localized heat-bias was proven in a real-world experiment conducted by NOAA’s laboratory in Oak Ridge, Tennessee and published in a peer reviewed science journal.
The UHI has long been either ignored and/or its impact on temperatures downplayed in the climate debate, despite the fact that it clearly significantly influences daily temperature measurements, as well as long-term climate trends. Kudos to ABC13 in Houston for reporting honestly on how the UHI affects Houston’s temperatures.
Anthony Watts is a senior fellow for environment and climate at The Heartland Institute.
Watts has been in the weather business both in front of, and behind the camera as an on-air television meteorologist since 1978, and currently does daily radio forecasts.
He has created weather graphics presentation systems for television, specialized weather instrumentation, as well as co-authored peer-reviewed papers on climate issues.
He operates the most viewed website in the world on climate, the award-winning website wattsupwiththat.com.
You must be logged in to post a comment.