Today’s title is adapted from the peer-reviewed paper “The Detection and Attribution of Northern Hemisphere Land Surface Warming (1850–2018) in Terms of Human and Natural Factors: Challenges of Inadequate Data“, by Willie Soon, Ronan Connolly, Michael Connolly, many others, with meager contributions by Yours Truly, in Climate. It’s open source, so all can read.
The Abstract (with my paragraphifications and emphasis):
A statistical analysis was applied to Northern Hemisphere land surface temperatures (1850–2018) to try to identify the main drivers of the observed warming since the mid-19th century.
Two different temperature estimates were considered—a rural and urban blend (that matches almost exactly with most current estimates) and a rural-only estimate. The rural and urban blend indicates a long-term warming of 0.89 °C/century since 1850, while the rural-only indicates 0.55 °C/century.
This contradicts a common assumption that current thermometer-based global temperature indices are relatively unaffected by urban warming biases.
Three main climatic drivers were considered, following the approaches adopted by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)’s recent 6th Assessment Report (AR6): two natural forcings (solar and volcanic) and the composite “all anthropogenic forcings combined” time series recommended by IPCC AR6. The volcanic time series was that recommended by IPCC AR6.
Two alternative solar forcing datasets were contrasted. One was the Total Solar Irradiance (TSI) time series that was recommended by IPCC AR6. The other TSI time series was apparently overlooked by IPCC AR6. It was found that altering the temperature estimate and/or the choice of solar forcing dataset resulted in very different conclusions as to the primary drivers of the observed warming.
Our analysis focused on the Northern Hemispheric land component of global surface temperatures since this is the most data-rich component. It reveals that important challenges remain for the broader detection and attribution problem of global warming: (1) urbanization bias remains a substantial problem for the global land temperature data; (2) it is still unclear which (if any) of the many TSI time series in the literature are accurate estimates of past TSI; (3) the scientific community is not yet in a position to confidently establish whether the warming since 1850 is mostly human-caused, mostly natural, or some combination. Suggestions for how these scientific challenges might be resolved are offered.
Idea is simple: cities are hotter than the countryside, as this picture proves:
This increased city heat is, indeed, a form of man-made “climate change.” It is real heat, which you really feel. But it is not different, qualitatively, to the man-made “climate change” you feel when you walk from the chilly outdoors into your cozy home. You have altered the temperature by manipulating the surroundings.
Think of it this way. Imagine putting an array of thermometers around the country in 20,000 BC. They will measure a certain January average maximum temperature, which will vary year on year because of various causes, none of which will be man’s influence. Leave the thermometers where they are and use them to measure this year’s average January maximum.
There will be a change because a new cause has entered: man. Some of those thermometers might land in somebody’s living room, others in cities. The average will, we suppose on conditional this evidence, have a large chance of being warmer. Further, if we have properly characterized all the old causes, we can calculate the influence man has, as long as we assume (as seems apparent) man is a cause.
We don’t learn from thermometers that man is a cause: we assumed it.
Anyway, it got warmer. Because of us. And so? Would you rather have it colder?
Like I’ve said many times, the real madness of “climate change” is the belief that man can only negatively affect his environment. People look at this temperature increase and instead of enjoying it, wring their hands and fret, sure that Earth disapproves and will punish them.
The scientific error comes in supposing the meager increase in carbon dioxide is responsible for the bulk, or even all of, the change. They forget, or dismiss, the obvious causes like you see in the picture.
Even some of my co-authors can’t quite divest themselves from the view of man-as-menace, as the headline of the paper’s press release reads “New study suggests global warming could be mostly an urban problem“.
Since it always comes up: No, unlike the majority of scientists who seek and accept funding, and a lot of it, and constantly, from a most interested and corrupt Regime, I took none. My total remuneration, of any kind, from all sources, valued in 2023 USD, was $0.00. Like I say in the bio, I am completely independent and rely on the generosity of readers to survive.
Subscribe or donate to support this site and its wholly independent host using credit card click here. Or use the paid subscription at Substack. Cash App: $WilliamMBriggs. For Zelle, use my email: email@example.com, and please include yours so I know who to thank.