NOAA’s U.S. contiguous U.S. summer measured minimum and maximum temperature trends (June through August) over the period 1895 through 2024 (shown below from NOAA’s Climate at a Glance Times series data website) show clear and distinct differing temperature trend increasing growth compared to the calculated average temperature trend outcome. [emphasis, links added]
The minimum temperature trend outcomes after 1985 climb significantly faster than the maximum measured temperature trend outcomes. U.S. population data shows an increase of about 100 million during the 1980 to 2023 period.
Since the average temperature is not a measured value but instead the calculated mathematical average of the minimum and maximum measured temperatures {(Tmax + Tmin)/2}, the average temperature-calculated trend outcome is controlled and dominated by the much larger increase occurring in the minimum-measured temperature trend versus the maximum measured temperature trend.
This differing trend distinction can be more clearly seen in the graphs below where the NOAA Climate at a Glance website time interval is broken into the intervals from 1895 to 1950 and 1950 to 2024 (where the Tavg value is controlled by Tmin not Tmax) respectively as shown below.
This outcome is consistent with and reflects the results of Dr. Spencer’s recent study shown below and found here.
Dr. Spencer also provided another study which displayed in graphical form the UHI impacts of U.S. and global wide temperatures during the period June 1850 through June 2023 as shown below and found here.
In addition to large population growth, UHIs are acting as a prime driver of rising calculated Tavg temperature outcomes, and these temperature measurements are also being significantly impacted by NOAA’s improper siting of thousands of temperature measurement stations.
These thousands of improperly sited temperature measurement devices do not meet NOAA/NWS siting standards.
They are located far too close to artificial heat sinks that falsely increase both maximum and minimum temperature measurements as addressed in detail here with an example clearly illustrating this huge system-wide measurement problem shown below.
As noted in this report (page 18), the [2019 Oak Ridge National Laboratory measurement station data accuracy experiment showed that flawed station siting impacted temperature measurement outcomes] much more during the evening periods (heat sink contributions to minimum temperatures were a factor of three larger than maximum day temperature contributions) than during the day.
NOAA evaluates U.S. and global average temperature anomaly changes over time by using and comparing the calculated Tavg values over time.
As indicated by the temperature measurement graphs and studies noted above, NOAA’s contiguous U.S. calculated Tavg increasing trend values since about 1985 have been driven upward by station measurement siting flaws and UHI Tmin outcomes versus Tmax measured outcomes.
This results in NOAA’s calculated Tavg assessments of increasing temperature anomalies over time being a flawed and exaggerated claim, driven by NOAA’s measurement siting inadequacies and population growth-driven UHI impacts—not ‘climate change.’
This outcome also applies to NOAA’s global-wide calculated Tavg temperature anomaly increasing trend assessments.
Read full post at Climate Realism
Larry Hamlin is a fool who should be ignored
There is no UHI for the 70% of the planet’s surface that is oceans.
NOAA’s USCRN network is all rural yet reflects MORE warming than their nClimDiv network that is mainly NOT rural.
Flawed surface station siting can be avoided by using UAH satellite data. Those data show a very strong warming trend since the 2014 trough
They also show ocean warming that is obviously NOT affected by UHI
When you see Larry Hamlin in the byline, move on to the next article.
USCRN was put online in January 2005, Ritard Greene. It hasn’t had the time necessary to establish a reliable trend.
In fact, temperature in 2019 was cooler than in 2005:
https://i.sstatic.net/RGN1y.png
Further, analysis of USCRN data suggests US surface temperature cooled by 1.26 C between 2007 – 2022.
https://iowaclimate.org/2022/06/08/new-analysis-of-uscrn-data-suggests-us-surface-temperature-has-cooled-1-26-c-since-2007/
In short, you’ve allowed your barking-mad frothing-at-the-mouth libtard pledge (on your website) to attack conservatives to blind you to reality, Ritard Greene.
Richard ‘Ritard’ Greene (aka DoubleSix6Man… 666Man) buys into every warmist premise; argues from the warmist perspective; leaps to the defense of leftist woketards; bleats about ‘consensus’; denigrates bog-standard radiative physics, quantum physics and thermodynamics in favor of the warmist mathematical fraudery in their misuse of the Stefan-Boltzmann equation and reliance upon ancient and long-debunked scientific principles (Prevost principle); and attacks anyone smart enough to mathematically and scientifically prove the warmist blather is unscientific.
He’s a warmist wolf in climate skeptic lambs-wool, a Judas goat sent by his warmist overlords to lead legitimate climate skeptics astray, to trick them over to the warmist side as means of incrementalizing them into leftism. His brand of warmism is just rehashed AGW / CAGW.
https://i.imgur.com/sTboYtJ.png
The ultimate drop-kick (especially #5, #6, #7, #8, #9 and #10) of the warmist moron Richard Greene:
1)
https://disqus.com/home/discussion/cfact/the_fibbing_five_of_the_climate_agenda/#comment-6454783679
2)
https://disqus.com/home/discussion/cfact/its_coal_to_the_rescue_as_wind_and_solar_fail_to_keep_german_lights_on/#comment-6448448712
3)
https://disqus.com/home/discussion/cfact/its_coal_to_the_rescue_as_wind_and_solar_fail_to_keep_german_lights_on/#comment-6448452729
4)
https://disqus.com/home/discussion/cfact/its_coal_to_the_rescue_as_wind_and_solar_fail_to_keep_german_lights_on/#comment-6448455507
5)
https://disqus.com/home/discussion/cfact/its_coal_to_the_rescue_as_wind_and_solar_fail_to_keep_german_lights_on/#comment-6448497673
6)
https://disqus.com/home/discussion/cfact/climate_and_energy_a_textbook_case_for_adaptation/#comment-6481611565
7)
https://disqus.com/home/discussion/cfact/climate_and_energy_a_textbook_case_for_adaptation/#comment-6481637806
8)
https://disqus.com/home/discussion/cfact/10_examples_to_counter_weather_weaponization/#comment-6489776217
9)
https://disqus.com/home/discussion/cfact/thousands_of_joshua_trees_set_to_fall_victim_to_green_energy_transition/#comment-6491043293
10) https://disqus.com/home/discussion/cfact/let_el_paso_be_el_paso_and_grow_economically/#comment-6513535063
I noticed that his “education” is not a PhD but a BS in some unknown field and an MBA. I’m sure with that education he is more than capable of critiquing the writing of those with PhDs and have studied climate science. Although I’m missing the MBA (which doesn’t cover science topics) but have worked in nuclear power in the Navy and got a degree in the Electrical and Computer Engineering program at RPI with 3 semesters in Physics, two in Chemistry, Thermodynamics, Electric Power, etc.
This will be ignored by the M.S. Media the Eco-Freaks and the Democrats since its the total truth