New Research Further Demonstrates Problems with Surface Temperature Records and Models

It is not just that the Earth has warmed less than biased temperature measurements indicate, it has also warmed less than climate models have said it should for the amount of CO2 humans have emitted into the atmosphere.

Climate Change Weekly has long detailed the severe problems with surface temperature records, driven largely by the Urban Heat Island (UHI) effect compromising the integrity of the vast majority of temperature stations.

In two studies for The Heartland Institute, meteorologist Anthony Watts detailed the extent to which the surface station record in the United States is compromised by station siting that violates the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) own standards for the proper, unbiased, siting of surface stations. Watts’ initial 2009 study found that 89 percent of the surface stations in NOAA’s and the National Weather Service’s (NWS) system were poorly sited and biased. After the study, NOAA/NWS closed some of the most severely compromised, ridiculously sited stations highlighted in report. Indeed, NOAA had already recognized the problem and had prior to the first study’s release established the U.S. Climate Reference Network (USCRN), consisting of 137 climate observing stations with the best equipment, existing in stable locations unlikely to ever be compromised by nearby development. At the same time, however, NOAA also added thousands of previously unregulated stations established and maintained by others to its system.

The larger system provides more comprehensive coverage, but the vast majority of the stations are, unsurprisingly, poorly sited. As a result, Watts’ follow up survey of NOAA’s surface station network found 96 percent of the stations used to determine U.S. average temperatures are biased upward due to poor siting. The UHI has compromised them.

How bad is the problem? As explained in an article in The Epoch Times, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has estimated 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.” Whereas the temperature record from the USCRN indicates little or no temperature change during its 18 years of existence, the broader network supports claims that the U.S. is warming. By the way, as detailed in previous Climate Change Weekly posts, what’s true for the United States is also true for the global surface station network and, since 2015, for the ocean temperature measurement system. Both are biased by poor siting compromising the validity of the temperatures measured.

A new report from the Heritage Foundation by Roy Spencer, Ph.D., a long-time friend of The Heartland Institute, principal research scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, and currently a visiting fellow in The Heritage Foundation’s Center for Energy, Climate, and Environment, looks at a slightly different problem with temperatures: the difference between measured warming and climate model temperature projections. It is not just that the Earth has warmed less than biased temperature measurements indicate, it has also warmed less than climate models have said it should for the amount of CO2 humans have emitted into the atmosphere.

Spencer’s research found recent warming is likely not due solely to human greenhouse gas emissions, and the warming experienced is substantially less than climate models have predicted—43 percent less, in fact. And that’s even when readings from the UHI-biased stations are included.

Spencer examined summertime temperature readings for 12 Corn Belt states in the United States. Each of the 36 models he compared to measured warming by surface stations, weather balloons, and global satellites overstated the amount of warming experienced, with most of the models off by 100 percent or more. (See the graphic, below)

Spencer is also working on a large-scale study to explain the discrepancy between urban and rural temperature stations globally, and how that plays into recent claims temperatures are setting all-time records. His preliminary data suggests measured warming is strongly correlated to population density. As cities grow, and populations increase and become more densely packed, temperatures in urban and suburban areas rise faster than in the surrounding countryside, once again confirming Watts’ conclusion that the temperature record is compromised by UHI.

If Watts’ and Spencer’s research are correct, not only do climate models “run too hot,” as even some of their proponents have been forced to admit, but the regularly reported surface station record is running too hot as well.

Related Topics:#ClimateModels #HeartlandDailyNews #HSterlingBurnett #SurfaceTemperatureRecords #UrbanHeatIsland #USClimateReferenceNetwork

Up Next

CDC finally admits COVID can be treated like the flu

Don't Miss

Government Admission: Biden Parole Flights Create Security ‘Vulnerabilities’ at U.S. Airports

Todayville

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

Two major banks leave UN Net Zero Banking Alliance in two weeks

Alberta / 4 hours ago

Fraser Institute: Time to fix health care in Alberta

Energy / 5 hours ago

Guilbeault’s Emissions Obsession: Ten Reasons to Call Time Out on Canada’s CO2 Crusade

armed forces

Top Brass Is On The Run Ahead Of Trump’s Return

Published on December 22, 2024

Todayville

From the Daily Caller News Foundation

By Morgan Murphy

With less than a month to go before President-elect Donald Trump takes office, the top brass are already running for cover. This week the Army’s chief of staff, Gen. Randy George, pledged to cut approximately a dozen general officers from the U.S. Army.

It is a start.

But given the Army is authorized 219 general officers, cutting just 12 is using a scalpel when a machete is in order. At present, the ratio of officers to enlisted personnel stands at an all-time high. During World War II, we had one general for every 6,000 troops. Today, we have one for every 1,600.

Right now, the United States has 1.3 million active-duty service members according to the Defense Manpower Data Center. Of those, 885 are flag officers (fun fact: you get your own flag when you make general or admiral, hence the term “flag officer” and “flagship”). In the reserve world, the ratio is even worse. There are 925 general and flag officers and a total reserve force of just 760,499 personnel. That is a flag for every 674 enlisted troops.

The hallways at the Pentagon are filled with a constellation of stars and the legions of staffers who support them. I’ve worked in both the Office of the Secretary of Defense and the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Starting around 2011, the Joint Staff began to surge in scope and power. Though the chairman of the Joint Chiefs is not in the chain of command and simply serves as an advisor to the president, there are a staggering 4,409 people working for the Joint Staff, including 1,400 civilians with an average salary of $196,800 (yes, you read that correctly). The Joint Staff budget for 2025 is estimated by the Department of Defense’s comptroller to be $1.3 billion.

In contrast, the Secretary of Defense — the civilian in charge of running our nation’s military — has a staff of 2,646 civilians and uniformed personnel. The disparity between the two staffs threatens the longstanding American principle of civilian control of the military.

Just look at what happens when civilians in the White House or the Senate dare question the ranks of America’s general class. “Politicizing the military!” critics cry, as if the Commander-in-Chief has no right to question the judgement of generals who botched the withdrawal from Afghanistan, bought into the woke ideology of diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) or oversaw over-budget and behind-schedule weapons systems. Introducing accountability to the general class is not politicizing our nation’s military — it is called leadership.

What most Americans don’t understand is that our top brass is already very political. On any given day in our nation’s Capitol, a casual visitor is likely to run into multiple generals and admirals visiting our elected representatives and their staff. Ostensibly, these “briefs” are about various strategic threats and weapons systems — but everyone on the Hill knows our military leaders are also jockeying for their next assignment or promotion. It’s classic politics

The country witnessed this firsthand with now-retired Gen. Mark Milley. Most Americans were put off by what they saw. Milley brazenly played the Washington spin game, bragging in a Senate Armed Services hearing that he had interviewed with Bob Woodward and a host of other Washington, D.C. reporters.

Woodward later admitted in an interview with CNN that he was flabbergasted by Milley, recalling the chairman hadn’t just said “[Trump] is a problem or we can’t trust him,” but took it to the point of saying, “he is a danger to the country. He is the most dangerous person I know.” Woodward said that Milley’s attitude felt like an assignment editor ordering him, “Do something about this.”

Think on that a moment — an active-duty four star general spoke on the record, disparaging the Commander-in-Chief. Not only did it show rank insubordination and a breach of Uniform Code of Military Justice Article 88, but Milley’s actions represented a grave threat against the Constitution and civilian oversight of the military.

How will it play out now that Trump has returned? Old political hands know that what goes around comes around. Milley’s ham-handed political meddling may very well pave the way for a massive reorganization of flag officers similar to Gen. George C. Marshall’s “plucking board” of 1940. Marshall forced 500 colonels into retirement saying, “You give a good leader very little and he will succeed; you give mediocrity a great deal and they will fail.”

Marshall’s efforts to reorient the War Department to a meritocracy proved prescient when the United States entered World War II less than two years later.

Perhaps it’s time for another plucking board to remind the military brass that it is their civilian bosses who sit at the top of the U.S. chain of command.

Morgan Murphy is military thought leader, former press secretary to the Secretary of Defense and national security advisor in the U.S. Senate.

conflict

Trump has started negotiations to end the war in Ukraine

Published on December 22, 2024

Todayville

For the first time since Russian soldiers entered Ukraine in February 2022, the US is negotiating with Vladimir Putin. Surprisingly it’s not President Biden’s team at work, but President Elect Donald Trump. Trump has been working through Hungary’s Prime Minister Viktor Orban. President Orban traveled to the US to meet with Trump a day before he had an hour long phone conversation with Russian leader Vladimir Putin.

Clearly Trump is looking for at least a quick de-escalation if not an all out end to the conflict in Ukraine. Alex Christoforou and Alexander Mercouris of The Duran podcast explain the current situation.