Tim Osborn Prefers Spin To Facts


By Paul Homewood

h/t Paul Matthews



Tim Osborn, Director of the Climatic Research Unit at the UEA has taken great exception at the GWPF for publishing my latest post on UK Climate Trends:



In particular, he seems to object to the public seeing the actual data. Apparently that is a “misleading interpretation” of the facts.

I’ve no doubt he would much prefer the blatant spin, which his chums at the Met Office like to use.

As I correctly predicted yesterday, we are now getting headlines prompted by the Met Office like these:

View original post 515 more words

Fraud In The National Climate Assessment

Here are Tony Heller’s videos on the 2018 National Climate Assessment

BBC’s Latest Heatwave Lies


By Paul Homewood

h/t Philip Bratby

The BBC are happy to trumpet the latest misleading propaganda from the Met Office:


Climate change has significantly boosted the chances of having summer heatwaves in the UK.

A Met Office study says that the record-breaking heat seen in 2018 was made about 30 times more likely because of emissions from human activity.

Without warming the odds of a UK heatwave in any given year were less than half a percent.

But a changing climate means this has risen to 12%, or about once every eight years.

The blazing summer of 2018 was the joint warmest for the UK.

It tied with 1976, 2003 and 2006 for being the highest since records began in 1910.

The steep temperatures that sustained across most parts of the UK, peaked on July 27 when 35.6C was recorded at Felsham in Suffolk.

Now researchers have analysed the observed…

View original post 1,580 more words

An Assessment of the 4th National Climate Assessment

By Andy May

The U.S. Fourth National Climate Assessment (NCA4) Volume II is out and generating a lot of discussion. Volume II, Impacts Risks and Adaptation in the United States to climate change can be downloaded here (Reidmiller, et al. 2018). Volume I, published last year, on the physical science behind the assessment is here (Wuebbles, et al. 2017).

The mainstream media (MSM) is breathlessly reporting about it using the following template or something similar:

“[Volume II] of the Fourth National Climate Assessment shows how [America/city/state/poor/people of color/old people/young people, etc.] are already feeling the effects of climate change from [wildfires/droughts/floods/disease/hurricanes/etc.].

Examples of these statements can be seen in National GeographicScience News, the New York Times, etc. These popular reports leave out some very important caveats.

  1. The NCA4 results are from computer climate model runs, some of them implausible.
  2. The climate models used to compute the effects of human influence on climate have never successfully predicted the weather, weather cycles (such as El Niño or La Niña events), or climate.

All climate models fail to predict the weather or climate, with the possible exception of the Russian model INM-CM4(Volodin, Dianskii and Gusev 2010). This model is mostly ignored by the climate community, presumably because it does not predict anything bad. As you can see in Figure 1, INM-CM4 matches observations reasonably well and that makes it an outlier among the 32 model output datasets plotted. This success also makes INM-CM4 the only validated model in the group.

Figure 1. A comparison of 32 climate models and observations. The observations are from weather balloon and satellite data. The two observational methods are independent of one another and support each other. The plot is after Dr. John Christy of the University of Alabama in Huntsville (Christy 2016).

A computer model is developed for a specific purpose and its validity must be determined with respect to that purpose (Sargent 2011). Climate models have been developed to predict future climate, with an emphasis on predicting global average temperatures, due to concerns that human fossil fuel use will result in dangerously higher global average temperatures. A secondary purpose of the models is to determine how much warming is due to humans and how much is due to natural variation. This is a tall order, since the warming over the past 120 years is less than one degree Celsius, a very small number relative to annual or daily temperature variations.

To validate any model, we must specify the required accuracy of the model output to meet our needs (Sargent 2011). The total temperature change over the past 120 years is about one degree and we want to know how much of that is due to nature and how much is due to humans. To meet this objective, the model must be accurate to better than 0.5 degree per century. Figure 1 suggests that most models do not meet the minimum threshold of 0.5 degrees/century for the period 1979 to 2015. On average (the red line) the models are 0.5 degrees above the observations by 2015, only 36 years after they were initialized in 1979. INM-CN4 is labeled and it, alone, is tracking the observations with enough accuracy, yet it does not predict dangerous temperatures in the future or any significant human influence on climate. The spread of model results, in 2015, after 36 years, is 0.9 degrees C., which is comparable to the entire change in temperature for the past 120 years. Thus, the spread in model results, argues that the accuracy is inadequate for the stated purpose of the models.

Both volumes of NCA4 argue that humans are mostly responsible for the recent observed global warming, that the recent warming is causing climate change, and that the climate change is dangerous. Figure 2 illustrates this chain of logic, the shades of gray indicate the uncertainty in each step, very low uncertainty is black, light gray is very uncertain.

Figure 2. The NCA4 chain of logic, deep black indicates very low uncertainty, very light gray indicates high uncertainty.

We can be very certain that climate is changing, we can observe the changes and see it in history and the archaeological record. It is well documented, to read more about the record see my posts on climate and civilization here and here. Humans are currently burning large quantities of fossil fuels and causing the concentration of CO2 to increase in the atmosphere, it has increased by 27% (from 0.032% to 0.04%) since 1959 according to data collected at the Mauna Loa observatory in Hawaii. CO2 is a greenhouse gas and increasing its concentration in the atmosphere will slow the loss of thermal energy from the Earth’s surface and, thus, cause some warming in the lower atmosphere. So far, we are in the deep black, very certain boxes.

Where considerable uncertainty enters the flow of logic, is when we get to “how much do humans contribute” to warming. NCA4 volume one tells us:

“… it is extremely likely that human activities, especially emissions of greenhouse gases, are the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century. For the warming over the last century, there is no convincing alternative explanation supported by the extent of the observational evidence.”

The phrase “extremely likely” is not well supported in the volume, or anywhere else. The lack of a “convincing alternative” (in their opinion) is not evidence that humans are the dominant cause of the warming, it just says we don’t understand the warming very well. They must rely on unvalidated climate models to tell us how much humans contribute, because the only validated model suggests the contribution from additional CO2 (and thus humans) is quite small. We observe warming, but we cannot observe human-caused warming. How much of the warming is due to nature? This is a complex problem and very poorly quantified. Chapter 3 of NCA4, volume one:

“The likely range of the human contribution to the global mean temperature increase over the period 1951–2010 is 1.1° to 1.4°F (0.6° to 0.8°C), and the central estimate of the observed warming of 1.2°F (0.65°C) lies within this range (high confidence). This translates to a likely human contribution of 93%–123% of the observed 1951–2010 change. It is extremely likely that more than half of the global mean temperature increase since 1951 was caused by human influence on climate (high confidence).”

Surface temperature models were used to compute the 0.65°C central estimate, yet as we can see in Figure 1, the range of model results is larger than this in the mid-troposphere, just for the period from 1979 to 2015. This fact alone invalidates their conclusion. We will not discuss the problems with the NCA4 determination of the human impact on climate here, this has been well covered in other posts, by myselfJudith Curry and others. We will just point out that the models and process they used are the same as those used by the IPCC in their fifth assessment (IPCC 2013).

NCA4 Volume II

NCA4 volume one provides the climate change projections for the future and volume two discusses the current and projected impacts on society due to these projections. It also discusses how we might mitigate and adapt to the changes. Because they have already concluded (by accepting dubious climate model output as fact without enough evidence, in our opinion) that human fossil fuel use is the cause of 93%-123% of recent climate changes, their discussion of mitigation revolves around eliminating fossil fuel use. However, the calculation of the impact of human fossil fuel use is swamped by the uncertainty in their models and unvalidated. Since volume two is entirely based on the human impact calculations in volume one, it is almost entirely invalid.

Climate change is real, climate has changed throughout the Earth’s history and will change in the future. Many times in human history climate has changed more rapidly than it is changing today, these changes are documented hereand here. Probably the best example is from the end of the last glacial period, 11,700 years ago, after the Younger Dyas cold period, when temperatures rose 5-10°C in just a few decades in the Northern Hemisphere (Severinghaus, et al. 1998). This is an astounding 9°F to 18°F in much less than 100 years. Humans adapted and even thrived during this change, which occurred at the dawn of human civilization. Despite this evidence, NCA4 insists that recent warming is unprecedented, this is a clear error in the report.

Due to the considerable doubt about the magnitude of the human contribution to climate change it would seem foolish to destroy the fossil fuel industry, throwing millions out of work and crushing the world’s economy with higher energy prices. Anything this foolish and destructive should certainly wait until (and if) the climate models used to create the projections used in NCA4 volume two are validated and produce a much tighter set of projections than seen in Figure 1. However, the chapter on adaptation is still valid. If some climate changes are harmful in some areas, these ideas are useful. Regardless of how much climate change is man-made, communities should adapt by improving their infrastructure to resist climate-related threats. Coastal areas should improve storm-surge and flood barriers, the western U.S. should improve their forest management to make fighting forest fires easier, every part of the U.S. should improve their surface water drainage, etc. Adaptation is an obvious thing to do, the benefits of mitigation (reducing fossil fuel use) are far more speculative and much less likely to be effective (May 2018). Bjorn Lomborg has also written extensively about this in his book Cool It and in articles such as this one. NCA4 reports that construction of adaptation infrastructure in the U.S. has increased since 2014, which is a good thing (page 53, Report-in-Brief).

I may have missed it, these reports are very long, and I didn’t read every word, but I don’t think the benefits of global warming and increasing CO2 levels are discussed or considered, outside of a few vague throw-away comments without documentation. There is a throw-away comment on page 37 of the Report-in-Brief: “Some aspects of our economy may see slight improvements …” but no discussion of the benefits. This is a major oversight, since the only impacts of climate change that can be verified to date, are beneficial. The additional CO2 in the atmosphere acts as a strong plant fertilizer and it also makes plants more resistant to drought. This has helped increase farm and forest productivity in the U.S. and around the world (Zhu, et al. 2016). Zhu et al. show that CO2 fertilization effects explain 70% the greening of the Earth since 1982. This is discussed in more detail here.

As the planet has warmed the past 120 years new land has also opened for agriculture in the far north of Canada and Asia, which has also increased agricultural productivity in those countries. Kip Hansen has discussed global greening here in a very good post with abundant references. NASA also has a page devoted to CO2 greening of the planet here. Yet, while the report acknowledges that U.S. forested area has increased (see Chapter 6) they neglect to say it was mostly because of additional CO2. While they mention that forests and wildlife are expanding to higher elevations and northward due to warming, they do not acknowledge that a large part of this expansion is due to additional CO2 and global warming. Then they inevitably ignore that this is a good thing and characterize the expansion and greening as “aiding the spread of invasive species” (Report-in-Brief, page 44). Every effect of warming or increasing CO2 is presented only in a negative light, showing a complete lack of lack of scientific reasoning or methods and displaying blatant political advocacy.

The report mentions that if the world warms, there will be more deaths due to extreme heat, which is true. Then, they project that the reduction in cold-related deaths due to warming will be smaller and the number of temperature related deaths will increase, not decrease as most previous studies have concluded (their study is here). In fact, in all parts of the Northern Hemisphere mid-latitudes, most deaths occur in the winter and the optimum temperature (meaning the time of fewest deaths) is near the average local summer temperature. Thus, humans are very adaptable and when they adapt, they adapt best to the local summer temperature. The statistical method used does not appear to consider adaptation, and the result is contrary to previous studies, which conclude that warming will decrease net deaths. They write the opposite in their report and state (without enough documentation in my opinion) that “the increase in heat deaths due to climate change will likely be larger than the decrease in cold deaths.” This is a difficult area to study and fraught with uncertainty, but it seems likely that they are wrong, and the net effect will be fewer deaths due to weather (Dixon, et al. 2005), not more. Besides the excellent paper by Dixon, I’ve written on climate-related mortality here. It is revealing that this group would do a risk assessment of man-made climate change and not consider all sides of this argument. It hurts their credibility.

As the world population grows and becomes more affluent, people build more expensive buildings and houses, and some build them in areas that are very vulnerable to disasters caused by weather and climate. It is the increase in development and population in dangerous locations that has increased the cost of climate-related damages over the 20th century (Mohleji and Pielke 2014). Mohleji and Pielke successfully separated the portion of disaster losses due to population growth and affluence (“socioeconomic” change) in disaster-prone areas and those due to climate. They found that it was all population growth and affluence, and none could be attributed to global climate change. We often hear public claims that climate change is causing an increase in disaster losses, but the peer-reviewed literature is clear that population growth in disaster prone areas explains the increase in losses, Mohleji and Pielke address this directly and write:

“As concluded by the IPCC (2012), socioeconomic change can explain the long-term increase in global losses. Thus, the apparent disconnect between peer-reviewed research and public claims is reconciled, and there is no disconnect at all. Even assuming anthropogenic climate change occurs as projected under a suite of models, it may be a very long time before attribution of economic losses to greenhouse gas emissions is possible. Crompton et al. (2011) conclude that an anthropogenic climate signal will not be identifiable in U.S. tropical cyclone losses for another 120–550 years with even longer timescales expected for other global weather-related natural disasters.”

So, we see that disaster losses have increased recently, but attributing these losses to climate change (man-made or otherwise) is not possible at this time. Pielke Jr. in testimony to the House of Representatives Committee on Science, Space and Technology (Pielke Jr. 2017) has shown that disaster losses, as a percent of global GDP, have gone down since 1990. There is no trend in the frequency of storms, droughts, or floods over the last 100 years. We actually have fewer acres of land burned today than we did in the 1930s.


NCA4 volume two assumes that human CO2 emissions dominate climate and that we can change our climate future by reducing our fossil fuel emissions. But we have already seen that the uncertainty in this conclusion is much larger than the changes we have observed. They falsely equate “climate change” and “man-made climate change.” By doing this, they can take any negative effects of climate change and blame us for it.

Both NCA4 reports contain some useful data, but they interpret it in a very one-sided and biased way. The report has errors of omission, such as omitting all the positive aspects of global warming and more CO2, such as a greener planet, more drought resistant plants, fewer climate-related deaths, and more arable land. Volume II of the report also accepts demonstrably uncertain model output from volume one as fact, justifying this solely because it is already published in volume one. Then it compounds the error and uses the dubious results to make highly uncertain projections about our economy and health. Finally, every projection is interpreted in the most negative way possible

Some of the more egregious errors and omissions are pointed out above, a more comprehensive list can be found on the NCA4 web site in their document “NCA4 Public Comments and Author Responses with names.” The good stuff starts on page 4 where you will see Ross McKitrick dissect portions of the report and the author responses. The print is very small so remember to use “ctrl +” to enlarge the print. Dr. McKitrick’s questions are precise, to the point and accurate as far as I can tell. It is telling that the authors usually simply say they disagree with Dr. McKitrick and, in a blatant example of circular reasoning, refer him to volume one. They do not try to debate him on the merits. A comment by Sean Birkel (Dr. Birkel is the Maine State Climatologist and an Assistant Professor at the University of Maine) on page 8 is pertinent:

“If these claims [Summary Findings, Chapter 1] were true then how is it that the US has grown so prosperous since the 1900s? You have just finished stating that massive, historically unprecedented climate changes occurred in the past century, especially in the past few decades. It is a matter of historical record that throughout this period the quality of life in the US just kept going up and up. Now you say that the next increment of warming will be completely different and will lead to ruin across the land. No exceptions, no caveats, no qualifications: you are asking the reader to forget the pattern that held up to now and take your word for it that disaster is coming. If you really believe that, then you owe it to the readers to be convincing, not cartoonish and apocalyptic. As one example, the opening phrase “cascading disruptions and damages in interdependent networks of infrastructure, ecosystems and social systems” reads like a Hollywood disaster flick – i.e. fiction. You have a very evocative style, but it sets a tone at odds with the expectation that this is a serious scientific document.”

Precisely so, the whole document does read like a Hollywood movie script. At any moment we expect Dwayne Johnson, Ben Affleck and Bruce Willis to jump out of the pages to save the world from Armageddon. A serious scientific report would cover the whole subject, good and bad. This reads like it was written first and then references selected to fit the narrative.

I have some respect for the most recent IPCC reports (IPCC 2013) and (IPCC 2014b) and refer to them often, but they cover both sides (at least in the actual report, the summaries often don’t). I’m afraid the NCA4 does not and as a result, it is a national embarrassment.

President Trump stated on November 26 that he didn’t believe the economic projections in the report and I certainly agree with him on that. Dr. Steven Koonin (Professor at NYU and former Obama undersecretary of science) recently wrote the following on this topic in the Wall Street Journal:

“The report’s numbers, uncertain as they are, turn out not to be all that alarming. The final figure of the final chapter [Chapter 29, page 170] shows that an increase in global average temperatures of 9 degrees Fahrenheit (beyond the 1.4-degree rise already recorded since 1880) [RCP8.5, an implausible scenario, “that does not provide a useful benchmark for policy studies.”] would directly reduce the U.S. gross domestic product in 2090 by 4%, plus or minus 2%—that is, the GDP would be about 4% less than it would have been absent human influences on the climate. That “worst-worst case” estimate assumes the largest plausible temperature rise and only known modes of adaptation. To place a 4% reduction in context, conservatively assume that real annual GDP growth will average 2% in the coming decades (it has averaged 3.2% since 1935 and is currently 3%). That would result in a U.S. economy roughly four times as large in 2090 as today. A 4% climate impact would reduce that multiple to 3.8—a correction much smaller than the uncertainty of any projection over seven decades. … The U.S. economy in 2090 would be no more than two years behind where it would have been absent man-caused climate change. Experts know that worst-case climate projections show minimal impact on the overall economy. Buried in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s 2014 report is a chart showing that a global temperature rise of 5 degrees Fahrenheit would have a global economic impact of about 3% in 2100—negligibly diminishing projected global growth over that period to 385% from 400%. If we take the new report’s estimates at face value, human-induced climate change isn’t an existential threat to the overall U.S. economy through the end of this century—or even a significant one. … There are many reasons to be concerned about a changing climate, including disparate impact across industries and regions. But national economic catastrophe isn’t one of them. It should concern anyone who supports well-informed public and policy discussions that the report’s authors, reviewers and media coverage obscured such an important point.”

The worst possible scenario in NCA4 results in a GDP decrease that is far less than the margin of error in the estimate. In other words, it amounts to nothing. This is pretty much what the report itself amounts to.

Works Cited

Charney, J., A. Arakawa, D. Baker, B. Bolin, R. Dickinson, R. Goody, C. Leith, H. Stommel, and C. Wunsch. 1979. Carbon Dioxide and Climate: A Scientific Assessment. National Research Council, Washington DC: National Academy of Sciences. http://www.ecd.bnl.gov/steve/charney_report1979.pdf.

Christy, John. 2016. Testimony of John R. Christy. Washington, D.C.: U.S. House Committee on Science, Space and Technology, 23. https://docs.house.gov/meetings/SY/SY00/20160202/104399/HHRG-114-SY00-Wstate-ChristyJ-20160202.pdf.

Curry, J. 2017. Climate Models for the layman. GWPF Reports. https://www.thegwpf.org/content/uploads/2017/02/Curry-2017.pdf.

Dixon, P., D. Brommer, B. Hedquist, A. Kalkstein, G. Goodrich, J. Wlter, C. Dickerson, S. Penney, and R. Cerveny. 2005. “HEAT MORTALITY VERSUS COLD MORTALITY A Study of Conflicting Databases in the United States.” AMERICAN METEOROLOGICAL SOCIETY 937-943. https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/BAMS-86-7-937.

IPCC. 2013. In Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, by T. Stocker, D. Qin, G.-K. Plattner, M. Tignor, S.K. Allen, J. Boschung, A. Nauels, Y. Xia, V. Bex and P.M. Midgley. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_SPM_FINAL.pdf.

IPCC. 2014b. “Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Part A: Global and Sectoral Aspects. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.” In Climate Change 2014, by C.B. Field, V.R. Barros, D.J. Dokken, K.J. Mach, M.D. Mastrandrea, T.E. Bilir, M. Chatterjee, et al. Cambridge University Press. http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg2/WGIIAR5-PartA_FINAL.pdf.

Lomborg, Bjorn. 2007. Cool It. Vintage Books. http://www.lomborg.com/cool-it.

May, Andy. 2018. Climate Catastrophe! Science or Science Fiction? American Freedom Publications LLC. https://www.amazon.com/CLIMATE-CATASTROPHE-Science-Fiction-ebook/dp/B07CPHCBV1/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1535627846&sr=8-1&keywords=climate+catastrophe+science+or+science+fiction.

Mohleji, Shalini, and Roger Pielke. 2014. “Reconciliation of Trends in Global and Regional Economic Losses from Weather Events: 1980–2008.” ASCE National Hazards Review 15 (4). https://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/(ASCE)NH.1527-6996.0000141.

Pielke Jr., Roger. 2017. “STATEMENT OF DR. ROGER PIELKE, JR. to the COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY of the UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.” U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC. https://science.house.gov/sites/republicans.science.house.gov/files/documents/HHRG-115-SY-WState-RPielke-20170329.pdf.

Reidmiller, D.R., C.W. Avery, D.R. Easterling, K.E. Kunkel, K.L.M. Lewis, T.K. Maycock, and B.C. Stewart. 2018. “mpacts, Risks, and Adaptation in the United States: Fourth National Climate Assessment, Volume II.” USGCRP, Washington D.C. doi:10.7930/NCA4.2018.

Sargent, Robert. 2011. “VERIFICATION AND VALIDATION OF SIMULATION MODELS.” Proceedings of the 2011 Winter Simulation Conference. https://www.informs-sim.org/wsc11papers/016.pdf.

Severinghaus, Jeffrey P., Todd Sowers, Edward J. Brook, Richard B. Alley, and Michael L. Bender. 1998. “Timing of abrupt climate change at the end of the Younger Dryas interval from thermally fractionated gases in polar ice.” Nature, January 8: 141-146. http://shadow.eas.gatech.edu/~jean/paleo/Severinghaus_1998.pdf.

Volodin, E. M., N. A. Dianskii, and A.V. Gusev. 2010. “Simulating present-day climate with the INMCM4.0 coupled model of the atmospheric and oceanic general circulations.” Atmospheric and Oceanic Physics 46 (4): 414-431. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1134%2FS000143381004002X.

Wuebbles, D.J., D.W. Fahey, K.A. Hibbard, D.J. Dokken, B.C. Stewart, and T.K. Maycock. 2017. Climate Science Special Report: Fourth National Climate Assessment, Volume I. Washington, D.C.: USGCRP, 470. doi: 10.7930/J0J964J6.

Zhu, Zaichun, Shilong Piao, Ranga B. Myneni, Mengtian Huang, Zhenzhong Zeng, Josep G. Canadell, Philippe Ciais, et al. 2016. “Greening of the Earth and its drivers.” Nature Climate Change 6: 791-795. https://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate3004.

Alarmists Will NOT Like This Part of the Recently Published U.S. Climate Science Special Report

Bob Tisdale - Climate Observations

Chapter 6 – Temperature Changes in the United States of the U.S. Global Change Research Program’s recently published Climate Science Special Report (2017) clearly shows and discusses, under the heading of “6.1.2 Temperature Extremes”, how temperature extremes for the contiguous United States have become more moderate over the last 118 years, with the coldest daily temperatures warming and the warmest daily temperatures cooling. In other words, temperature-extreme-related climate in the United States has improved.

View original post 1,736 more words

Science studies say heatwaves were more common in USA during the 1930’s

Original story from No Tricks Zone
During the 1930s, when the atmospheric CO2 concentration was about 100 ppm lower than today (310 ppm vs. 410 ppm), United States heat waves were just as if not more common than recent decades.

Recently there has been much ado about heat waves and the hottest-ever-recorded-temperatures making their rounds in Northern Hemisphere summer.

Yet scientists have determined that heat waves are largely driven by natural variability, not anthropogenic CO2 emissions.

Was there a basis for anticipating the 2010 Russian heat wave?

The 2010 summer heat wave in western Russia was extraordinary, with the region experiencing the warmest July since at least 1880 and numerous locations setting all‐time maximum temperature records. This study explores whether early warning could have been provided through knowledge of natural and human‐caused climate forcings.
“The July surface temperatures for the region impacted by the 2010 Russian heat wave shows no significant warming trend over the prior 130‐year period from 1880 to 2009. A linear trend calculation yields a total temperature change over the 130 years of −0.1oC.”
“Model simulations and observational data are used to determine the impact of observed sea surface temperatures (SSTs), sea ice conditions and greenhouse gas concentrations. Analysis of forced model simulations indicates that neither human influences nor other slowly evolving ocean boundary conditions contributed substantially to the magnitude of this heat wave. They also provide evidence that such an intense event could be produced through natural variability alone. Analysis of observations indicate that this heat wave was mainly due to internal atmospheric dynamical processes that produced and maintained a strong and long‐lived blocking event, and that similar atmospheric patterns have occurred with prior heat waves in this region. We conclude that the intense 2010 Russian heat wave was mainly due to natural internal atmospheric variability. Slowly varying boundary conditions that could have provided predictability and the potential for early warning did not appear to play an appreciable role in this event.”

Shiogama et al., 2013

Attribution of the June–July 2013 Heat

Wave in the Southwestern United States

A severe heat wave occurred in the southwestern United States (US) during June and July 2013. To investigate the effects of natural variability and anthropogenic climate change on this event, we generated large ensemble simulations of possible weather using the MIROC5A climate model forced by “historical external forcing agents, sea surface temperature (SST) observations and sea ice (SIC) observations” both with and without human influence. It was suggested that both the anthropogenic warming and an atmospheric circulation regime related to the natural variability of SST and SIC made the heat wave event more likely. On the other hand, no significant human influence was found in atmospheric circulation patterns. These results were robust for two different estimates of anthropogenic signals on SST and SIC.”

These conclusions are consistent with the observation that heat wave events have not been increasing in tandem with the dramatic rise in CO2 emissions over the last century, further rendering the link between human activity and heat waves dubious.

In the United States, for example, where the most extensive long-term instrumental temperature data reside, there has been no significant trends in heat wave frequency since the 1880s, and there has been an overall decline in the number of decadal-scale heat waves since the 1930s.

Peterson et al., 2013

Monitoring and understanding changes in

heat waves, cold waves … in the United States

For the conterminous United States, the highest number of heat waves occurred in the 1930s, with the fewest in the 1960s. The 2001–10 decade was the second highest but well below the 1930s. Regionally, the western regions (including Alaska) had their highest number of heat waves in the 2000s, while the 1930s were dominant in the rest of the country.”
Image Source: (Peterson et al., 2013)

Ruprich-Robert et al., 2018

Impacts of the Atlantic Multidecadal Variability on

North American Summer Climate and Heat Waves

Heat waves are primarily driven by internal atmospheric variability (Schubert et al. 2011, Dole et al. 2011), but their frequency of occurrence and severity can be modulated by atmospheric boundary forcing. Soil moisture deficits have been shown to play an important role in intensifying heat wave severity (Huang and Van den Dool 1993, Fischer et al. 2007, Jia et al. 2016, Donat et al. 2016).”
“Radiative forcing variations, such as those driven by anthropogenic emissions, can also modulate the occurrence of heat waves (e.g., Hansen et al. 2012). Previous studies, based on Coupled Global Climate Models (CGCMs) integrated under different anthropogenic forcing scenarios, concluded that over the US, the number of heat waves would increase during the 21st century (Meehl and Tebaldi 2004, Diffenbough et al. 2005, Lau and Nath 2012). However, this increasing trend may be modulated by the impacts on land of low frequency sea surface temperature (SST) variability (e.g., Schubert et al. 2016, Seager and Ting 2017), such as that associated with the internally-driven component of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO; Newman et al. 2016) or the Atlantic Multidecadal Variability (AMV; Schlesinger and Ramankutty 1994, Knight et al. 2005). These low frequency SST variations may explain why there has not been any long-term trend of heat waves detected over the US during the 20th century, despite the increase of radiative forcing (Kunkel et al. 1999, Easterling et al. 2000).”

Depietri and McPhearson, 2018

Changing urban risk: 140 years of

climatic hazards in New York City

“The trends based on the NOAA meteorological data show that changes in the length of the heat wave events equal or beyond 3 days of duration are not significant. The mean maximum temperature of the heat wave is also close to stable over the 140-year period of study with no significant increase. … Results obtained from the in-depth analysis of the NYT articles, corresponding to the dates of longer lasting heat wave events (i.e., equal or more than 6 days in duration), show that the number of deaths and people affected in New York City significantly declined. … The change in coping strategies mentioned in the newspapers articles and divided before and after the 1960s illustrates how the advent of air conditioning can be most likely contributed to the significant reduction in mortality due to extreme heat. … Also not significant are the trends in extreme precipitation (beyond 1.75 in. and beyond 3.5 in.) with significant inter-annual and interdecadal variability.”

Images Source: Depietri and McPhearson, 2018


Full story at No Tricks Zone

Laughable weather station maintenance causes highest ever temperature record in Spain

h/t to Dr. Ryan Maue

In Spain, Paco Eslava García has been following my lead on the poor quality of weather stations that produce record-high temperatures. I recently pointed out how the tentative all time high temperature in Africa could very well be due being at an airport. I also pointed out that high temperature records in the Los Angeles area could be a product of poor siting. Such as this station on the roof of the Santa Ana fire station:

My study at AGU looked at how hundreds of such poorly sited stations are increasing the temperature trend of the United States.

But what Paco has found in Spain is truly laughable.

Here’s his Tweet showing why:


This is the meteorological station, which has the highest temperature record in Spain, is located in the municipal district of Montoro… maybe a little maintenance would not hurt!

What Paco is speaking of is the Stevenson Screen. The box with slats to allow airflow. That’s where the thermometer is located. It’s supposed to be white, to minimize the solar heating effect. But as you can see, it’s not white at all, it’s brown due to lack of paint, which seems to have worn off:

It also appears that the front door of the screen may be missing. The vegetation is too high near it, blocking wind, and there’s a large concrete structure nearby.

Paco adds this photo, where you can see the station in the distance just under the word “Vega”:

Here’s the rub as to why this station is a problem.The 2017 heat wave that brought a new all-time high temperature record.

Spain records hottest day at 47.3C (117F)

Written by
Then the following afternoon, it was even hotter with Montoro setting a new national record of 47.3C surpassing the 1990 record of 47.2C. Cordoba also set a new all-time record with a high of 46.9C while Madrid set a new July record with 40.2C.

I wonder if the State Meteorological Service of Spain (AEMET) bothered to go look at the weather station at Montoro before they verified that all-time high record. Probably not. That’s an embarrassing failure of science either way.

Fortunately, it doesn’t appear that this station is part of GHCN, so it doesn’t make it into temperature trends. But it does make it into climatic citations for all-time-records, and plenty of headlines. That’s still unacceptable.

Surface albedo matters when it comes to high temperatures, and a Stevenson screen that has lost it’s paint and exposes darkened wood absorbs more incoming solar radiation during the day, making the interior warmer than it should be.

But hey, let’s just call it “climate change” and nod to the consensus, as AEMET apparently did.

A friend of Paco,  has found some other issues. He writes (translated):

Here you can see three central AEMet stations. The first manual, the second with two wind towers in the front of the building and between the Grove and the last, the automatic which is officially used on the terrace.

For example, here’s another Stevenson Screen with a dark roof.

Another freind,  writes of another poorly sited station (also with a dark roof and chipping paint) that set the previous record:

Be cautious about Tmax on some Spain stations in next days. I have doubts about Montoro (p.1) st. Every day is 1-2 °C warmer than other hottest st. in Spain P.2 Murcia Alfonso X measured 47,2 in 1995, BUT…


Measuring temperature in the street, on rooftops, and using poorly maintained equipment is just irresponsible, and isn’t what you’d expect of science. One wonders if AEMET is just lazy, incompetent, or both?

The all time record high temperatures for Los Angeles are the result of a faulty weather stations and should be disqualified

With those hot weather records in Los Angeles being set, it’s important to remember where measurements are taken. I’ve done an investigation and found that every “all time high” reported by the LA Times is from a station compromised by heat sources and heat sinks. In my opinion, the data from these stations is worthless.

It’s been going on for some time, for example, back in 2010, because there’s been a questionable high reading reading at USC of 113°F. This 2010 LA Times article tells why:

L.A.’s hottest day ever

How hot was it? The National Weather Service’s thermometer downtown reached 113 degrees for the first time since records began being kept in 1877 — and then stopped working. The record highs follow a summer of record lows.

September 27, 2010 | By Bob Pool and Rong-Gong Lin II, Los Angeles Times

It was so hot Monday that it broke the all-time record — and the weatherman’s thermometer.

The National Weather Service’s thermometer for downtown Los Angeles headed into uncharted territory at 12:15 p.m. Monday, reaching 113 degrees for the first time since records began being kept in 1877.

Shortly after that banner moment, the temperature dipped back to 111, and then climbed back to 112. Then at 1 p.m., the thermometer stopped working.The weather service office in Oxnard rushed an electronics technician 60 miles southeast to the USC campus to repair the thermometer, which is actually a highly sensitive wire connected to electronic equipment. Because of the snafu, officials said it’s possible Monday’s temperature actually was hotter than 113 — but they might never know.

Or, the data was just bogus because the sensor was failing…but we’ll never know.

Here’s the USC weather station that had ‘all time record high’ surrounded by cars and asphalt. I wonder what it looked like when original record was set?

The ASOS type station used at USC is notorious for producing false record highs where there aren’t any. For example, Honolulu and Tucson.

And just look where the USC weather station is located: (click to enlarge)

Here is a close-up view.   [This is near the intersection of Vermont and 36th.]

Source: https://www.bing.com/maps?v=2&cp=pp3hv95484k5&style=o&lvl=2&tilt=-90&dir=0&alt=-1000&scene=6986505&encType=1

Look at all the service vehicles parked around it. One wonders recent record high that was claimed there is just another result of a vehicle being parked to close to it like the Ice Cream Truck debacle that denied a new all-time record high for Scotland a few days ago.

Then there’s the downtown Los Angeles station, which set a record high the other day. It’s on top of the parking garage at the LA Department of Power and Light, which I first identified in 2008.

More vehicles right next to the weather station…Downtown L.A. set a new record of 104 degrees on Saturday, from this station.

Let’s look at some of the other locations for record high temperatures set in LA this past week. According to this LA Times article:

Among the places that hit that milestone Friday were Van Nuys Airport (117 degrees), Burbank Airport (114), UCLA (111) and Santa Ana (114).

Let’s have a look at those stations.

Van Nuys Airport:

It’s another ASOS station snuggled between an industrial park, runway, road, and taxiway. Note the row of planes and private homes near the taxiway.

Source: https://www.bing.com/maps?v=2&cp=pp3hv95484k5&style=o&lvl=2&tilt=-90&dir=0&alt=-1000&scene=6986505&encType=1

Street view of Van Nuys airport weather station:

I wonder, did a plane come out of the driveway and blow hot exhaust fumes that day? if so, we can apparently blame the Germans for this one.

Burbank Airport:

Yes, the weather station is virtually surrounded by asphalt runways, taxiways, and aircraft parking ramps. The likelihood for the station to get in the middle of a 400F jetwash is almost a certainty, being so close to taxiways with turns. This is a ridiculous place to measure for high temperatures.

Back in the day, the Burbank airport didn’t have as much of these biasing factors.

UCLA’s weather station is on the roof of the Math Sciences/Atmospheric Sciences building. Why? there’s no place else to put it. There’s hardly a free and open space left. Here’s the ground view from Google Street View

And the rooftop view. Note the squirrel cage blower and exhaust vent nearby.

Source: https://www.bing.com/maps?v=2&cp=pp3hv95484k5&style=o&lvl=2&tilt=-90&dir=0&alt=-1000&scene=6986505&encType=1

And here’s the piece d’ resistance, Santa Ana:

Yes that’s right, it’s on a rooftop at the fire station there.

Here is a closeup view:

A rooftop with air conditioners, a perfect place for measuring high temperature records that are guaranteed to be wrong becuase they are upwardly biased by the roof, the building, and the AC heat exchanger exhausts. But let’s just ignore all that and blame “CO2 induced warming” and demand people stop driving, using so much electricity, and eating meat. Yeah, that’s the ticket.

A reminder, NOAA’s own requirements for the placement of thermometers to record climate data has been violated on every one of these stations.


Thermometers should be shielded from the sun, rain, snow and other sources of light, heat, or cold that can cause erroneous readings. If an instrument shelter is used, it should be designed to allow the maximum possible free flow of air while providing protection from heat, precipitation and light. A shady location on the northeast side of the school is a preferred site.

The thermometer should be 4.5 to 6 feet above the ground and in a grassy location. (You may need to keep a step stool nearby for short people because readings are taken at eye level to minimize parallax error.) A flat, open clearing is desirable so that the thermometer is freely ventilated by the flow of air. Stay at least 100 feet away from concrete or paved surfaces. Avoid balconies, patios, enclosed porches, and beneath eaves.

This is why every one of these high temperature readings made by the stations above should be disqualified.

Scottish “record high temperature” caused by Ice Cream Truck

From the  “I scream, you scream, we all scream for higher temperatures” department. Yesterday, Paul Homewood and I went on a collaborative search to find the weather station at Strathclyde Park which had it’s all-time Scottish high temperature record denied by the Met Office, to no avail. It just wasn’t easily visible. One of Paul’s readers went to the scene and took photos, but it isnit just the photos, it’s what he found out. Photo credits to Duncan McNeil. Read on.


The Met Office said:

“Unfortunately in this particular instance we have evidence that a stationary vehicle with its engine running was parked too close to the observing enclosure and the Stevenson screen housing the thermometers during the afternoon of 28th June,”

Turns out, it was an ice cream truck.

Here is what Duncan McNeil wrote after asking around at the scene, bolded sentence mine.

From: DMcNeil
Sent: 06 July 2018 22:14
To: paul homewood
Subject: Re: Strathclyde

Hi Paul,

Having read that they were blaming a car exhaust I revisited the park.  I discovered that the weather station is split over two sites.  The anemometer and wind direction indicators are on the roof.  The stevenson screen is in the boat compound.  I have attached two google screen shots showing the position of the Stevenson Screen as well as photos.  The screen shot shows a large tent? close beside the Stevenson screen, but over the last couple of summers and without doubt in our extraordinary weather recently that position is taken up by an ice cream van which stays there all day with it’s engine running to keep the freezers working.  The boat compound is in a continual state of flux depending on what events are being held in the park.

Thanks for all the work you put into your site,


So claims of “extreme heat due to global warming” have been shot down by the Good Humor Man. I found this photo of an ice cream truck in Strathclyde Country Park here:

It doesn’t get any more ridiculous than this for climate alarmists

This is why yearly site inspections for all weather stations that report to the climatic record are needed. Otherwise you end up with bogus data. How many others like this exist that we don’t know about?

UPDATE: As I was writing this, one of our own WUWT readers (Peta of Newark) chimed in with these photos (annotations mine):

Been there, done that, got the T-shirt.

S’pose you want pictures huh…
I hope they work.

Up close and personal…

Same angle but steeped back, now we see the ‘parked vehicle’
Oh the ironing, its an ice cream van.

From the exact opposite side..

The piers/water are off to the left and we’re looking into the gym (those S shaped things are treadmills) in the top left corner of the big white roof building in the top photo..
Yes, that is a diesel generator attached to the back of the ice cream van

It is one very large water park, set below the town and driving into there is like walking into a fridge. The water really does cool it – or is the a carbon dioxide hole above the park?

The ice cream girl (that’s her in the drivers seat with her back to us) was ever so ever so sweet – from Poland I guess, not Scottish at all. Hope that cow May doesn’t send her home.
It made her soooo happy to be a World Record Breaker, just the smile on her face made the trip worthwhile.

Otherwise what a Complete Mess of a weather station

The ‘gallery’ should be here: https://postimg.cc/gallery/f8lhzifs/


In case you don’t know, ice cream trucks have usually 2 or 3 aircons or chillers with heat exchangers, plus a generator. They are true “urban heat islands”.