A highly topical peer-reviewed study in the scientific magazine “Climate” proves on the basis of measured data that the “man-made” climate change claimed by the media and politicians is anything but certain.
Thirty-seven international scientists from different institutions statistically examined public data on temperature development on the continents of the Northern Hemisphere. [emphasis, links added]
They specifically chose the north, since the largest part of the Earth’s landmass is located here and a particularly large number of values from measuring stations from many decades are available.
Among the authors are some names known to EIKE readers, such as Willie Soon, Johan Berglund, Marcel Crok, Ana G. Elias, François Gervais, Hermann Harde, Ole Humlum, Patrick Moore, Nicola Scafetta, Jan-Erik Solheim, László Szarka and Fritz Vahrenholt.
Rural vs urban
It was important for the researchers to compare data from measuring stations in rural and urban areas. The reason for this is the well-known heat island effect of settlements, which makes cities and larger villages somewhat warmer than the undeveloped surroundings.
Global Warming: Is the Covered-up Cause the Heat Island Effect?
Every inhabitant can easily understand that developed areas are basically warmer: Building facades heat up more through solar radiation than, for example, a tree or a meadow.
Heaters and air conditioners generate heat deliberately or as a side effect – all this causes a higher local temperature by up to 2°C [3.6°F} on an annual average.
This naturally raises the question for the honest scientist whether the urban heat island effect does not falsify temperature data.
The question is justified since the number of measuring stations has been drastically reduced since 1990 – and those that have been maintained are mostly located near settlements since they are maintained from there.
Another problem: In countries like China, cities have grown enormously in recent decades, “overgrowing” previously remote locations of measuring stations.
For this reason alone, thermometers at such locations are measuring a higher temperature this year.
Natural warming or industrial global warming?
Government scientists claim that the average temperature of the Earth’s atmosphere has risen since 1850 because a booming industry has been blowing huge amounts of greenhouse gas carbon dioxide into the air ever since.
The “climate” study examined measurement series from 1850 to 2018 and found that the mean temperature has risen by 0.89°C [1.6°F] per century.
That’s true for mixed measurement data from settlements and the province. If one uses only values from rural areas, one obtains a warming of only 0.55°C [1°F] (38% less).
Warm industrial age is good for mankind
Now, one could say that even if there is a small error in the data, CO2 still heated the world.
Not at all – until 1850, the “Little Ice Age” prevailed in the Northern Hemisphere, as the cooling phase lasting about 400 years is somewhat dramatically called.
It is to be expected that after this long period of time, it will naturally become warmer again, and this is good for people.
And nothing new: The High Middle Ages and the Roman Period were epochs of rich harvests and cultural flourishing.
First appearing at AUF1 (edited)
h/t RO
Read more at No Tricks Zone
Blaming Livestock Farmer for Global Warming/Climate Change is Stupid and based on Junk Science and Politics
No Tricks Zne is an unrelaibke source, They will printalmost anything that points away from greenhouse gas warming.
Humans occupy only 14,5% of the land and land is only 29% of the planet. Urbans areas are about 2% of the planet. That does not add up to much potential for year over year UHI warming. Of course UHI is one of many causes of AGW. So are CO2 emissions increasing and SO2 emissions decreasing. N=Manmade climate change remains unproven only if you chose to ignore all evidence. No one can specify the exact mix of manmade versus natural climate change but the claim that all climate change is natural is a deliberate lie.
ALL lies are deliberate. The 97% of scientists agree is an example.
The 97% consensus was a lie because of the methodology used to come to that pre-determined conclusion.
The actual consensus is 99.9% that there is a greenhouse effect and CO2 is part of it. That is a correct consensus.
The incorrect consensus is 59%. In 2022, a survey found that 59% of scientists believed global warming was dangerous (aka CAGW). While a real 59% consensus is much lower than a fake 97% consensus, as we were told to believe, it is still a real consensus. And very disappointing. CAGW is a prediction, wrong since 1979, not a fact. It’s disappointing that so many scientists would take a long term climate prediction seriously after it has been wrong for 44 years in a row, since the 1979 Charney Report. Not to mention the 100% wrong other long term climate predictions made in the past century.
Richard,
You miss understood the statement on the Heat Island Effect. The article is not saying that the 2% of the land that is urban areas is heating the planet. What is happening is most of the sensors are located in these warmer locations and they are being used to determine the theoretical warming of the entire planet. You mentioned carbon dioxide. This is a potent green house but most of its warming ability is in the first 20 ppm. The ability of CO2 to warm is a declining logarithmic curve as the concentration goes up and by the time was get our current 420 ppm the warming from this gas is negligible.
You say that No Tricks Zone is not a reliable source. Does that mean that the mentioned Middle Age warming and the Roman Warm Period didn’t happen?
UHI automatically does not affect 71% of the planet that is oceans. That fact makes UHI a minor cause of global warming.
No Tricks Zone is biased against CO2 as a cause of global warming. Any author who claims to know the percentage of natural versus manmade warming is lying. The percentages are unknown. But there is more evidence of greenhouse gas warming than there is evidence of more sunlight reaching Earth’s surface.
CO2 may have a logarithmic effect but the effect did not stop at 300ppm or 400ppm. And that CO2 warming causes a water vapor positive feedback that could double the warming effect of CO2 alone. That does not add up to any danger, but could explain half the warming since 1975
There are no data to determine whether the warm centuries in the past 5000 years were global. Reconstructions are not accurate enough. The reconstructions of the Holocene Climate Optimum 5000 to 9000 years ago are good enough to assume that period was at least slightly warmer than today. These local reconstructions are not global. When averaged they tend to have smaller variations. the claimed +0.5 degrees C. warming for some warm periods in the past 5000 years is too small — below the likely margin of error in the estimates. Some centuries were warmer than others, but we have no accurate data to prove that in the past 5000 years.
Richard,
You are still missing the point of the article. You are correct that the urban heat island is a minor cause of global warming. The issue isn’t the actual warming, but the measurement of the warming. Most sensors are located in urban heat islands. These readings are warmer than 98% of the planet outside of these areas. Yet, they are being used to impact the average temperature value of all land.
As far as the ability of CO2 to warm the planet, no declining logarithmic curve ever reaches zero. At 300 ppm carbon dioxide has 4% of the green house capacity it has at its peak value. The first scientific assessment of the IPCC found no warming effect from CO2. The politicians made sure that never happened again. There is a lot of insight in that 40% of the warming blamed on man occurred between 1910 and 1941 when the carbon dioxide levels were relatively low and raising very slowly. The Tricks Zone is justified in being biased against CO2 as a cause of global warming.
The theory connecting carbon dioxide to water vapor amplification says the CO2 warms the earth resulting in greater evaporation of water some of which ends up in the upper atmosphere. At that location the water causes a lot of warming. However, since the warming from CO2 is much lower than the alarmist believe, it can’t be causing the extra evaporation in the amplification theory.
Any cause of a warmer troposphere leads to a higher water vapor content AND ADDITIONAL WARMING. RISING CO2 IS ONE CAUSE OF A WARMER TROPOSPHERE.
No one studies the average absolute temperature of our planet. They study anomalies, WHICH INCLUDE UHI changes that can affect any land-based weather station with economic growth in the vicinity. No effect on ocean temperatures, which are 71% of the surface. Our planet was warming from 1975 to 2016 whether we include UHI increases or not.
The article wasn’t talking about whether the warming exists, it said the putting more of the sensors in urban heat islands exaggerated the warming.
Our planet has been warming since the end of the mini ice age. Climate activists select the early 70’s as a base line because in the fluctuations of the warming trend it was a cool point. Cheery picking that starting point makes the warming to 2016 appear be faster. Why does the warming trend you mention stop at 2016? Why not 2022?
There is a preponderance amount of evidence showing carbon dioxide is not a factor in warming. At 420 ppm we are beyond the saturation point for that gas. It is very significant that the first scientific report of the IPCC found no connection between CO2 and warming. Even data from Al Gore’s “Inconvenient True” shows CO2 does not control warming. On a geological time scale his data showed that temperature and the concentration of carbon dioxide paralleled each other. What he wasn’t smart enough to discover is that the temperature curve was leading. This means for that time temperature was controlling carbon dioxide, not the other way around.
As is pointed out in the article, the distribution of measurement stations is not even (at least until 1979 and the satellite era), so your assertions are flawed, in that measurements are plainly concentrated around the 2% (your figure) where UHI effect is most prominent…
71% oceans with no UHI
UHI at land stations is assumed with no data
A comparison of rural and urban stations prove nothing.
The daily temperature records being splashed in the headlines prove nothing, then, if UHI is irrelevant.
The Vikings flourished in Greenland around 1,000 AD until the climate changed and it got COLDER. Fear the cold not the warm.
Urban heat island effect is an inconvenient truth for the AGW crowd. It’s been there all along, but our CO2 emissions from burning coal and petroleum is their focus. Do people leave cities because they are uncomfortably hot? It must be way down the list. If people decide to move, it’s usually south. Economic reasons like opportunity, lower taxes, and lower crime rates seem to dominate, escaping socialist policies. San Francisco is a good example, it’s not hot in ‘frisco.
When it comes to energy, consumers like abundance, choice and affordability. All three of those are threatened by socialist policies. Las Vegas has attracted 3 sports franchises lately. Why, when it’s hot as hell there. The wide open southern border has seen millions of economic refugees pour into America. The alarmists prefer to call them climate refugees. BS!