Archives par mot-clé : Temperature

Our Urban “Climate Crisis”

by Jim Steele, May 17, 2019 in WUWT

Based on a globally averaged statistic, some scientists and several politicians claim we are facing a climate crisis. Although it’s wise to think globally, organisms are never affected by global averages. Never! Organisms only respond to local conditions. Always! Given that weather stations around the globe only record local conditions, it is important to understand over one third of the earth’s weather stations report a cooling trend (i.e. Fig 4 below ) Cooling trends have various local and regional causes, but clearly, areas with cooling trends are not facing a “warming climate crisis”. Unfortunately, by averaging cooling and warming trends, the local factors affecting varied trends have been obscured.

It is well known as human populations grow, landscapes lose increasing amounts of natural vegetation, experience a loss of soil moisture and are increasingly covered by heat absorbing pavement and structures. All those factors raise temperatures so that a city’s downtown area can be 10°F higher than nearby rural areas. Despite urban areas representing less than 3% of the USA’s land surface, 82% of our weather stations are located in urbanized areas. This prompts critical thinkers to ask, “have warmer urbanized landscapes biased the globally averaged temperature?” (Arctic warming also biases the global average, but that dynamic must await a future article.)

No Hockey Sticks: Studies Reveal Long-Term Lack of Warming

by Vijay Jayaraj, May 16,2019 in WUWT

A new temperature reconstruction, using proxy temperature measurements from locations in central Asia, has revealed that there has been no warming in the past 432 years.

The Global Warming “Hiatus” or Pause

The word “hiatus” became popular in recent years after the discovery of a pause or hiatus in global warming. There has been a lack of warming in the atmosphere since 1999, despite the predictions of computer climate models.


by Roy Spencer, May 15, 2019 in GWPF

A major uncertainty in figuring out how much of recent warming has been human-caused is knowing how much nature has caused. The IPCC is quite sure that nature is responsible for less than half of the warming since the mid-1900s, but politicians, activists, and various green energy pundits go even further, behaving as if warming is 100% human-caused.

The fact is we really don’t understand the causes of natural climate change on the time scale of an individual lifetime, although theories abound. For example, there is plenty of evidence that the Little Ice Age was real, and so some of the warming over the last 150 years (especially prior to 1940) was natural — but how much?

The answer makes as huge difference to energy policy. If global warming is only 50% as large as is predicted by the IPCC (which would make it only 20% of the problem portrayed by the media and politicians), then the immense cost of renewable energy can be avoided until we have new cost-competitive energy technologies.

The recently published paper Recent Global Warming as Confirmed by AIRSused 15 years of infrared satellite data to obtain a rather strong global surface warming trend of +0.24 C/decade. Objections have been made to that study by me (e.g. here) and others, not the least of which is the fact that the 2003-2017 period addressed had a record warm El Nino near the end (2015-16), which means the computed warming trend over that period is not entirely human-caused warming.

If we look at the warming over the 19-year period 2000-2018, we see the record El Nino event during 2015-16 (all monthly anomalies are relative to the 2001-2017 average seasonal cycle):


See also Spencer’s blog

New Study: The Tropical Atlantic Was 7.5°C Warmer Than Now While CO2 Was 220 ppm

by K. Richard, May 9, 2019 in NoTricksZone

Another new paper published in Paleoceanography and Paleoclimatology casts further doubt on the paradigm that says CO2 has historically been a temperature driver.

Evidence from the tropical Atlantic indicates today’s regional temperatures (15.5°C) are 7.5°C colder than a peak temperatures (23°C) between 15,000 to 10,000 years ago, when CO2 hovered around 220 ppm.

How much has urbanisation affected United Kingdom temperatures?

by P. Homewood, May 6, 2019 in NotaLotofPeopleKnowThat

This study aims to estimate the affect of urbanisation on daily maximum and minimum temperatures in the United Kingdom. Urban fractions were calculated for 10 km × 10 km areas surrounding meteorological weather stations. Using robust regression a linear relationship between urban fraction and temperature difference between station measurements and ERA‐Interim reanalysis temperatures was estimated. For an urban fraction of 1.0, the daily minimum 2‐m temperature was estimated to increase by 1.90 ± 0.88 K while the daily maximum temperature was not significantly affected by urbanisation. This result was then applied to the whole United Kingdom with a maximum T min urban heat island intensity (UHII) of about 1.7K in London and with many UK cities having T min UHIIs above one degree.

This paper finds through the method of observation minus reanalysis that urbanisation has significantly increased the daily minimum 2‐m temperature in the United Kingdom by up to 1.70 K.

As ever, the real issue with UHI is the change in the effect over time. Has, for instance, the effect of UHI increased in London and other cities increased over the last century, or was it just as great in 1919?

What we do know is that, generally speaking, towns and cities have both expanded over time, and seen increasing development in terms of roads, buildings, traffic and economic activity.

Indeed, these same tendencies also apply in small towns and what may appear to be relatively rural sites.

We also know that many of the sites used by the Met Office in their UK temperature series are urban and airport locations.

New satellite data confirm real world temperature cooler than climate models

by CFACT, May 2nd, 2019

Newly published data gathered by NASA’s AIRS satellite confirm the Earth is warming more slowly than has been forecast by climate activists and the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Data gathered from 2003 through 2017 confirm temperatures remained essentially flat from 2003 through 2015, finally rising briefly as a strong El Nino formed in 2015 and lasted into 2016 ( Even with El Nino adding an illusory warming spike at the end of the period, temperatures still rose just over 0.2 degrees during the 15-year period. That pace works out to less than 1.5 degrees of warming per century.

IPCC initial forecasts called for 0.3 degrees Celsius of warming per decade, while skeptic forecasts have tended to hover around 0.1 degrees. As temperatures warmed more slowly than IPCC predicted, IPCC reduced its forecasts to meet skeptics in the middle, moving to a predicted 0.2 degrees warming per decade. Even so, the newly published data indicate IPCC continues to forecast more warming than real-world data indicate.

Un mécanisme russe pour expliquer le réchauffement global

par Jean N., 4 mai 2019 in Science-Climat-Energie

Dans une récente publication[1] de 2019, l’équipe russe de G.A. Zherebtsov présente un mécanisme permettant d’expliquer le réchauffement global. Ce mécanisme, basé sur une série d’observations, ne fait pas intervenir le taux de CO2 atmosphérique mais les rayons cosmiques solaires ainsi que le champ électromagnétique terrestre. Les chercheurs qui ont pensé à ce mécanisme (inconnu du GIEC) font tous partie de l’institut de Physique Terrestre et Solaire de la Branche Sibérienne de l’Académie Russe des Sciences (Irkutsk, Russie). Si le mécanisme de l’équipe de Zherebtsov est correct, on pourrait alors se passer de l’hypothèse de l’effet de serre radiatif qui, comme vous le savez peut-être, pose certains problèmes (voir ici, ici et ici). Le but du présent article est simplement de présenter ce mécanisme et de montrer par la même occasion que la science du climat est loin d’être dite.

1. Observations réalisées le 7 novembre 2004

Les chercheurs russes ont d’abord constaté qu’à certaines latitudes il y a un lien assez fort entre le flux de rayons cosmiques solaires (RCS) et la température de la troposphère. Ceci est par exemple bien visible dans un évènement qui a débuté le 7 novembre 2004 au niveau des hautes latitudes de l’hémisphère nord (55°N-65°N). Ce jour-là, le flux de RCS était particulièrement fort d’environ 3 ordres de grandeur plus élevé par rapport à la normale (Figure 1a). Une tempête géomagnétique s’est ensuite déclarée le jour suivant et a duré au moins 5 jours (il s’agit de fluctuations brusques et intenses du magnétisme terrestre qui proviennent d’une perturbation de l’ionosphère par l’activité solaire). Ceci est bien visible sur le tracé des indices géomagnétiques AE (Figure 1b) et Dst (voir aussi ici), indices obtenus par certaines stations de mesure placées au sol et réparties en divers endroits de la planète (Figure 1c). Il existe de nombreux indices géomagnétiques et il n’est pas nécessaire d’être un spécialiste pour comprendre la suite du présent article. Il faut simplement retenir que le champ magnétique terrestre est perturbé les jours suivant l’arrivée des RCS. Voyons maintenant si tout ceci peut avoir un effet sur la température de la basse troposphère.

Figure 4. Diagramme présentant le mécanisme de Zherebtsov. Source : Zherebtsov et al. (2019) J Atm Solar Terrestrial Physics 182:217–222 (traduit de l’anglais).

Le GIEC au pays des merveilles

by Drieu Godefridi, 2 mai 2019 in Contrepoints

Réduire le réchauffement global sur Terre de 1,5° ? Dans un récent rapport, le Giec échafaude quatre scénarios pour y parvenir. Mais aucun d’eux ne tient la route.

es quatre scénarios mettent en œuvre à des degrés divers les techniques dites de Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR), qui compensent les émissions humaines de CO2. Écoutons les experts « scientifiques » du GIEC — dont la plupart ne sont pas scientifiques. Lisons les experts du GIEC :

Analysis of new NASA AIRS study: 80% of U.S. Warming has been at Night

by Dr. Roy Spencer, April 30, 2019 in WUWT

I have previously addressed the NASA study that concluded the AIRS satellite temperatures “verified global warming trends“. The AIRS is an infrared temperature sounding instrument on the NASA Aqua satellite, providing data since late 2002 (over 16 years). All results in that study, and presented here, are based upon infrared measurements alone, with no microwave temperature sounder data being used in these products.

That reported study addressed only the surface “skin” temperature measurements, but the AIRS is also used to retrieve temperature profiles throughout the troposphere and stratosphere — that’s 99.9% of the total mass of the atmosphere.

Since AIRS data are also used to retrieve a 2 meter temperature (the traditional surface air temperature measurement height), I was curious why that wasn’t used instead of the surface skin temperature. Also, AIRS allows me to compare to our UAH tropospheric deep-layer temperature products.

So, I downloaded the entire archive of monthly average AIRS temperature retrievals on a 1 deg. lat/lon grid (85 GB of data). I’ve been analyzing those data over various regions (global, tropical, land, ocean). While there are a lot of interesting results I could show, today I’m going to focus just on the United States.

The Relationship between Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Concentration and Global Temperature for the Last 425 Million Years

by William J. Davis, September 2017, in ResearchGate

Assessing human impacts on climate and biodiversity requires an understanding of the relationship between the concentration of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the Earth’s atmosphere and global temperature (T). Here I explore this relationship empirically using comprehensive, recently-compiled databases of stable-isotope proxies from the Phanerozoic Eon (~540 to 0 years before the present) and through complementary modeling using the atmospheric absorption/transmittance code MODTRAN. Atmospheric CO2 concentration is correlated weakly but negatively with linearly-detrended T proxies over the last 425 million years.

UAH, RSS, NOAA, UW: Which Satellite Dataset Should We Believe?

by Dr Roy Spencer, April 23, 2019 in GlobalWarming

This post has two related parts. The first has to do with the recently published study of AIRS satellite-based surface skin temperature trends. The second is our response to a rather nasty Twitter comment maligning our UAH global temperature dataset that was a response to that study.

Furthermore, that period (January 2003 through December 2017) shows significant warming even in our UAH lower tropospheric temperature (LT) data, with a trend 0.01 warmer than the “gold standard” HadCRUT4 surface temperature dataset (all deg. C/decade):

AIRS: +0.24
GISTEMP: +0.22
ECMWF: +0.20
Cowtan & Way: +0.19
UAH LT: +0.18
HadCRUT4: +0.17

I’m pretty sure the Susskind et al. paper was meant to prop up Gavin Schmidt’s GISTEMP dataset, which generally shows greater warming trends than the HadCRUT4 dataset that the IPCC tends to favor more. It remains to be seen whether the AIRS skin temperature dataset, with its “clear sky bias”, will be accepted as a way to monitor global temperature trends into the future.

What Satellite Dataset Should We Believe?

Greenland Temperature Data For 2018

by P. Homewood, April 24, 2019 in NotaLotOfPeopleKnowThat

The DMI has just published its Greenland Climate Data Collection for last year, and it is worth looking at the temperature data:

There are six stations with long records, Upernavik, Nuuk, Ilulissat, Qaqortoq, Narsarsuaq and Tasilaq.

Throughout Greenland we find that temperatures in the last two decades are little different to the 1920s to 60s.

The only exceptions were 2010 on the west coast sites, which was an unusually warm year, and 2016 on the east coast at Tasilaq, another warm year there.

Noticeably, last year was actually colder than the 1981-2010 average at all of the west and south coast stations.


Le CO2 belge : que représente-il vraiment ?

by Jean N., 17 avril 2019 in Science-Climat-Energie

Cet article s’inscrit dans le cadre de l’activité actuelle médiatique tout azimut en Belgique, notamment relayée par les marches hebdomadaires des étudiants pour le climat. Comme vous le savez peut-être si vous êtes un lecteur fidèle de SCE, nous avons démontré dans plusieurs articles que l’hypothèse de l’effet de serre radiatif ne tient pas la route (ici, ici et ici) et n’explique pas le léger réchauffement actuel de la basse atmosphère. Les fins connaisseurs savent également qu’il existe de nombreuses publications scientifiques remettant en cause l’hypothèse de l’effet de serre radiatif (plus de 500 publications rien que pour 2018), toutes écrites par des physiciens, des chimistes, des géologues ou des climatologues. Si cette somme d’évidences vous a convaincu, le GIEC aurait alors tort sur toute la ligne et le CO2 d’origine anthropique n’aurait aucun rôle majeur déterminant la température de la basse troposphère. Cependant, admettons un instant que vous ne soyez pas convaincu et admettons donc que le GIEC ait raison. Tout ce qui est écrit dans son dernier rapport spécial devrait alors être vrai… Quelle serait alors la part de la Belgique dans le réchauffement? Asseyez-vous pour ne pas tomber, vous allez être surpris.

Figure 1. Extrait de la Figure SPM.1 du résumé pour décideurs (SPM) du rapport spécial publié par le GIEC fin 2018. Cette figure se trouve en page 8 du rapport du GIEC.

Predicting heat waves? Look half a world away

University of California – Davis, April 12, 2019 in ScienceDaily

When heavy rain falls over the Indian Ocean and Southeast Asia and the eastern Pacific Ocean, it is a good indicator that temperatures in central California will reach 100°F in four to 16 days, according to a collaborative research team from the University of California, Davis, and the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) Climate Center in Busan, South Korea.

The results were published in Advances in Atmospheric Scienceson April 12.


Heat waves are common in the Central California Valley, a 50-mile-wide oval of land that runs 450 miles from just north of Los Angeles up to Redding. The valley is home to half of the nation’s tree fruit and nut crops, as well as extensive dairy production, and heat waves can wreak havoc on agricultural production. The dairy industry had a heat wave-induced economic loss of about $1 billion in 2006, for instance. The ability to predict heat waves and understand what causes them could inform protective measures against damage.