A new study by 37 researchers from 18 countries has come to the conclusion that urban warming biases have contaminated the global temperature record.
It also suggests that the most recent IPCC reports underestimate the role of solar activity.
The paper, entitled ‘The Detection and Attribution of Northern Hemisphere Land Surface Warming’, was accepted for publication in the scientific peer-reviewed journal, Climate, on August 28, 2023. [emphasis, links added]
Thermometers in towns and cities read warmer than their countryside counterparts. This is an irrefutable fact that even the IPCC concedes.
While urban areas account for <4% of the global land surface, most weather stations used in official global temperature calculations are in metropolis settings.
For this reason, a growing number of scientists are questioning mainstream global warming reckonings, asking, have they been contaminated by the urban heat island (UHI) effect?
In their latest report, the IPCC estimated that ‘urban warming’ accounted for less than 10% of the perceived global temperature rise.
This new study, however, contends that this number explains up to 40% of the documented warming since 1850.
When the authors analyzed the official global temperature data using only the IPCC’s solar dataset, they could not explain any of the warming since the mid-20th century — i.e., they agreed that the Sun played only a minor part at best.
However, when the authors repeated the analysis using a different estimate of solar activity—one that is often used by the scientific community (read the paper for more or see the below graphic)—they found that the temperature trends for rural data, for both warming and cooling, could largely be explained by the natural ebb and flow of solar activity.
The lead author of the study, Dr. Willie Soon of the Center for Environmental Research and Earth Sciences described the implications of their findings: “For many years, the general public has been assuming that the science on climate change is settled. This new study shows that this is not the case.”
Co-author of the study, Prof. Ana Elias, Director of the Laboratorio de Ionosfera, Atmósfera Neutra y Magnetosfera (LIANM) at the Universidad Nacional de Tucumán, Argentina, explained, “This analysis opens the door to a proper scientific investigation into the causes of climate change.”
Similar conclusions are reached in a separate paper recently published in Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics.
This second study, entitled ‘Challenges in the Detection and Attribution of Northern Hemisphere Surface Temperature Trends since 1850’, led by Dr. Ronan Connolly, involved many of the same co-authors.
However, the researchers took a different approach to analyzing the causes of ‘climate change’ using an additional 25 estimates of solar activity and three extra temperature estimates.
These two separate papers tackle the same problem, the detection and attribution of Northern Hemisphere surface temperatures, but in different ways—yet they still arrive at similar conclusions.
And there’s a third paper, too:
Those interested in a deeper dive into the urbanization bias and the related issue of correcting for non-climatic biases in the temperature data might want to check out Katata et al. (2023)‘s ‘Evidence of Urban Blending in Homogenized Temperature Records in Japan and United States’, published in the Journal of Applied Meteorology and Climatology.
Greenpeace cofounder Dr. Patrick Moore recently posted on X:
“I am one of 37 authors from 18 countries to publish in a reputable science journal the fact that the urban heat island effect accounts for 40% of the alleged warming and the balance can be explained by solar variability.”
Parisian officials, it would appear, recognize this fact with their plan to remove 40% of the city’s asphalt:
Paris hopes to fight rising temperatures by being less of a concrete jungle.
The city plans to remove 40% of its asphalt. City officials want to temper the urban heat island effect with more green spaces, more green and white roofs, and more blinds on Parisian buildings. pic.twitter.com/gKr8MnwdlO
— Pattrn (@pattrn) September 3, 2023
Read more at ElectroVerse
Maybe 4 years ago, I went to town for groceries (population ~16,000). Sunny, warm and humid, clear skies. Half an hour later, the exit from the store was backed up, it was pouring rain, no one wanted to get soaked. I was able to check local radar. The thunderstorm had formed over town and didn’t move. It rained itself out. That’s the most striking example of urban heat island effect I’ve experienced.
Our 2007 Volvo XC90 has an onboard thermometer (very accurate) and tells me the outside temperature at all times. I have noticed many times that when we are in the nearby town with a population ~ 30,000, the temperature is always higher. On occasions the difference can be 15C.
Yesterday, I was caught in traffic gridlock on a major freeway and the car thermometer rose to 35C. Later, after I had cleared the gridlock, the temperature was 23C.
Now, there is no doubt with so many cars and trucks nearby, all just idling along, that would have conrtibuted to the higher temp reading, however overall, average temperature in this particular area would have been higher because of all the asphalt and concrete surfaces.
If there was an official weather station nearby, it would have been recording a “heat island” temperature.
Great
Now explain the ocean warming
There are two sources of data for ocean temperature. One is the intake of the water on commercial ships measured by industrial sensors. The other is scientific instruments on ocean buoys which are traceable to National Institute of Standards and Technology. The ocean buoy data is obviously more reliable. However, the measurements from commercial ships are warmer. NOAA uses these warmer temperatures to apply corrections to the data of the ocean buoys.
None of this makes much difference. The earth has been naturally warming since the end of the mini ice age, so detecting warming is not an issue. What really matters is that carbon dioxide is beyond it saturation point as far as being a green house gas. CO2 is a powerful green house gas, but most of this ability in is the first 20 ppm. At 420 ppm, we are beyond the saturation point and increasing the concentration has little impact on warming.
David, good try by giving actual factual data to Drewski but you aren’t going to get him to change his mind. Your second point about CO2 being past its saturation point for affecting its ability to trap any additional heat is well known to climate scientists but ignored by those getting paid to paint increasing CO2 (and by extension the burning of fossil fuels to affect CO2 levels) are not going to tell the truth. Their livelihoods and status on the world stage would be greatly affected if they told the truth.
Quite so! The principle of CO2 atmospheric absorption leads to a discussion about the gas’s frequency absorption spectrum as a function of its average density. All of sudden the terms become mild technical and the brains of the climate alarmists are too primitive to grasp their meaning and understand what it’s about. Carbon dioxide in earth’s atmosphere cannot add to the atmosphere’s ability to trap heat beyond where it presently does so. Look at Venus and Mars and their respective atmospheric densities, with both their atmosphere’s at 95% CO2 content and the idea should be clear to even the simplest minds. This is ideology prevents agreement.
I wish someone with deep pockets would fund alternate measuring stations. I would put them in parks or other rural environments nearby to all the urban monitors to make a comparison “average global temperature.” Maybe that would change a few minds – at least among those that are footing the bill for the climate change gravy train.
Al Gore has circled the globe several times over several years. The truth has its shoes on, hitchhiking.
At least something challenging the climate disaster lies with a paper published in a reputable journal, at least for now. Wait until the left screams at the journal to get this paper rejected.
I am curious what areas Paris will be removing asphalt. Is it going to reduce the number of roads in the city, the number of parking lots, or what?