Study: UHI in Hong Kong accounts for most ‘warming’ since 1970

But the Chinese “invented global warming” so the data is fake and UHI has no effect on heat-sink temperature rise in other major capital cities – it’s still all CO2’s fault. (/sarc.)

Watts Up With That?


How much warmer has Hong Kong’s urban area become during the past 4 decades?

Characterizing the urban temperature trend using seasonal unit root analysis: Hong Kong from 1970 to 2015

Scientists from Macao Polytechnic Institute are pioneers in exploring urban temperature in Hong Kong using seasonal econometric models. In particular, the characterization of the urban temperature trend was investigated using a seasonal unit root analysis of monthly mean air temperature data over the period of January 1970 to December 2013.

“The seasonal unit root test makes it possible to determine the stochastic trend of monthly temperatures using an autoregressive model,” says Prof. Wai Ming To. “We found that Hong Kong’s urban mean air temperature has increased by 0.169°C per 10 years over the past four decades using monthly temperature data, or 0.174°C per 10 years using annual temperature data, and…

View original post 467 more words

Gavin Schmidt Warns Donald Trump Not to Interfere with the NASA Climate Division

“Senior Nasa scientist suggests he could resign if Donald Trump tries to skew climate change research results….”

Astonishing irony in that comment, knowing that NASA GISS temp is the most highly adjusted (tampered) dataset of all the products, by a mile!

And what is Schmidt so afraid of if there was an audit of NASA climate practices to check the veracity of their GISS data set through:

– The highly questionable and radical temperature homogenisation techniques of ‘cooling the past and warming the present’.
– Spurious temperature in-filling.
– UHI-effected, poorly sited temp stations?

Furthermore, the people, the tax payer own NASA, its data and pay Schmidt’s wage.

It is not climate activist-in-chief Gavin Schmidt’s private playground to tamper data to fit the “global warming” narrative, and use the (once) respected name of “NASA” as a platform to spread blatant climate change activist propaganda with genuine religious zeal, dismissing all remnants of scientific rigour and open enquiry, in favour of, IMHO, open scientific fraud.

Time to “drain the (climate change) swamp”!

Watts Up With That?


Guest essay by Eric Worrall

Gavin Schmidt, director of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, has “warned” President-elect Donald Trump not to interfere with their climate activities. Schmidt maintains the GISS global temperature series, arguably the most adjusted of all the global temperature products.

‘Global warming doesn’t care about the election’: Nasa scientist warns Donald Trump over interference

Senior Nasa scientist suggests he could resign if Donald Trump tries to skew climate change research results.

A senior Nasa scientist has told Donald Trump he is wrong if he thinks climate change is not happening and warned the President-elect that government scientists are “not going to stand” for any interference with their work.

Mr Trump has described global warming as a “hoax” perpetrated by China, vowed to unratify the landmark Paris Agreement and appointed a renowned climate-change denier to a senior environmental position in his transition team.

View original post 312 more words

“The Hottest Year Evah”



Been hearing that 2015 was the hottest year on record? This depends entirely on which temperature data set is being referred. There are two main methods of measuring global temperature:

  • The much more accurate and comprehensive satellite measurement systems, RSS/UAH, which measure the average temperature of every cubic inch of the lower atmosphere, the exact place where global warming theory is meant to occur and be measured! Or…
  • NASA and NOAA’s preferred surface-based thermometers which measure “different parts of the system [UHI affected parking lots, asphalt heat sinks, AC exhaust air vents], different signal to noise ratio [we bias toward warm stations], different structural uncertainty [we ‘homogenise’ the data set to cool the past and warm the present to fit the global warming narrative].”NASA GISS Gavin Schmidt’s admission about the satellite record versus the surface temperature record (doctored in square brackets by Climatism)
  • The other issue with surface-based thermometer readings is that you can travel hundreds if not thousands of kilometres without finding a thermometer nearby. The Arctic region is a great example of this, as well the oceans which cover 70 percent of the planet.

With the ever increasing divergence of surface temperatures (NASA GISS) from satellite ones (UAH/RSS), and the subsequent divergence of overheated climate models (IPCC CMIP5) to observed reality, it is worth some background on the temperature measurement systems used to measure global temperature and fundamentally to help combat misinformation about NASA and NOAA’s “Hottest Year Ever” – PR claims that tell us everything about marketing, and nothing about science…


Measuring global temperatures: Satellites or thermometers? 



The University of Alabama in Huntsville

The official global temperature numbers are in, and NOAA and NASA have decided that 2015 was the warmest year on record. Based mostly upon surface Dr_-Roy-Spencerthermometers, the official pronouncement ignores the other two primary ways of measuring global air temperatures, satellites and radiosondes (weather balloons).

The fact that those ignored temperature datasets suggest little or no warming for about 18 years now, it is worth outlining the primary differences between these three measurement systems.

Three Ways to Measure Global Temperatures

The primary ways to monitor global average air temperatures are surface based thermometers (since the late 1800s), radiosondes (weather balloons, since about the 1950s), and satellites measuring microwave emissions (since 1979). Other technologies, such as GPS satellite based methods have limited record length and have not yet gained wide acceptance for accuracy.

While the thermometers measure near-surface temperature, the satellites and radiosondes measure the average temperature of a deep layer of the lower atmosphere. Based upon our understanding of how the atmosphere works, the deep layer temperatures are supposed to warm (and cool) somewhat more strongly than the surface temperatures. In other words, variations in global average temperature are expected to be magnified with height, say through the lowest 10 km of atmosphere. We indeed see this during warm El Nino years (like 2015) and cool La Nina years.

The satellite record is the shortest, and since most warming has occurred since the 1970s anyway we often talk about temperature trends since 1979 so that we can compare all three datasets over a common period.

Temperatures of the deep ocean, which I will not address in detail, have warmed by amounts so small — hundredths of a degree — that it is debatable whether they are accurate enough to be of much use. Sea surface temperatures, also indicating modest warming in recent decades, involve an entirely new set of problems, with rather sparse sampling by a mixture of bucket temperatures from many years ago, to newer ship engine intake temperatures, buoys, and since the early 1980s infrared satellite measurements.

How Much Warming?

Since 1979, it is generally accepted that the satellites and radiosondes measure 50% less of a warming trend than the surface thermometer data do, rather than 30-50% greater warming trend that theory predicts for warming aloft versus at the surface.

This is a substantial disagreement.

Why the Disagreement?

There are different possibilities for the disagreement:

1) Surface thermometer analyses are spuriously overestimating the true temperature trend
2) Satellites and radiosondes are spuriously underestimating the true temperature trend
3) All data are largely correct, and are telling us something new about how the climate system operates under long-term warming.

First let’s look at the fundamental basis for each measurement.

All Temperature Measurements are “Indirect”

Roughly speaking, “temperature” is a measure of the kinetic energy of motion of molecules in air.

Unfortunately, we do not have an easy way to directly measure that kinetic energy of motion.

Instead, many years ago, mercury-in-glass or alcohol-in-glass thermometers were commonly used, where the thermal expansion of a column of liquid in response to temperature was estimated by eye. These measurements have now largely been replaced with thermistors, which measure the resistance to the flow of electricity, which is also temperature-dependent.

Such measurements are just for the air immediately surrounding the thermometer, and as we all know, local sources of heat (a wall, pavement, air conditioning or heating equipment, etc.) can and do affect the measurements made by the thermometer. It has been demonstrated many times that urban locations have higher temperatures than rural locations, and such spurious heat influences are difficult to eliminate entirely, since we tend to place thermometers where people live.

Radiosondes also use a thermistor, which is usually checked against a separate thermometer just before weather balloon launch. As the weather balloon carries the thermistor up through the atmosphere, it is immune from ground-based sources of contamination, but it still has various errors due to sunlight heating and infrared cooling which are minimized through radiosonde enclosure design. Radiosondes are much fewer in number, generally making hundreds of point measurements around the world each day, rather than many thousands of measurements that thermometers make.

Satellite microwave radiometers are the fewest in number, only a dozen or so, but each one is transported by its own satellite to continuously measure virtually the entire earth each day. Each individual measurement represents the average temperature of a volume of the lower atmosphere about 50 km in diameter and about 10 km deep, which is about 25,000 cubic kilometers of air. About 20 of those measurements are made every second as the satellite travels and the instrument scans across the Earth.

The satellite measurement itself is “radiative”: the level of microwave emission by oxygen in the atmosphere is measured and compared to that from a warm calibration target on the satellite (whose temperature is monitored with several highly accurate platinum resistance thermometers), and a cold calibration view of the cosmic background radiation from space, assumed to be about 3 Kelvin (close to absolute zero temperature). A less sophisticated (infrared) radiation temperature measurement is made with the medical thermometer you place in your ear.

So, Which System is Better?

The satellites have the advantage of measuring virtually the whole Earth every day with the same instruments, which are then checked against each other. But since there are very small differences between the instruments, which can change slightly over time, adjustments must be made.

Thermometers have the advantage of being much greater in number, but with potentially large long-term spurious warming effects depending on how each thermometer’s local environment has changed with the addition of manmade objects and structures.

Virtually all thermometer measurements require adjustments of some sort, simply because with the exception of a few thermometer sites, there has not been a single, unaltered instrument measuring the same place for 30+ years without a change in its environment. When such rare thermometers were identified in a recent study of the U.S., it was found that by comparison the official U.S. warming trends were exaggerated by close to 60%. Thus, the current official NOAA adjustment procedures appear to force the good data to match the bad data, rather than the other way around. Whether such problem exist with other countries data remains to be seen.

Changes in radiosonde design and software have occurred over the years, making some adjustments necessary to the raw data.

For the satellites, orbital decay of the satellites requires an adjustment of the “lower tropospheric” (LT) temperatures, which is well understood and quite accurate, depending only upon geometry and the average rate of temperature decrease with altitude. But the orbital decay also causes the satellites to slowly drift in the time of day they observe. This “diurnal drift” adjustment is less certain. Significantly, very different procedures for this adjustment have led to almost identical results between the satellite datasets produced by UAH (The University of Alabama in Huntsville) and RSS (Remote Sensing Systems, Santa Rosa, California).

The fact that the satellites and radiosondes – two very different types of measurement system — tend to agree with each other gives us somewhat more confidence in their result that warming has been much less than predicted by climate models. But even the thermometers indicate less warming than the models, just with less of a discrepancy.

And this is probably the most important issue…that no matter which temperature monitoring method we use, the climate models that global warming policies are based upon have been, on average, warming faster than all of our temperature observation systems.

I do believe “global warming” has occurred, but (1) it is weaker than expected, based upon independent satellite and weather balloon measurements; (2) it has been overestimated with poorly adjusted surface-based thermometers; (3) it has a substantial natural component; and (4) it is likely to be more beneficial to life on Earth than harmful.

About the Author: Dr. Roy Spencer

Roy W. Spencer is a Principal Research Scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville. He received his Ph.D. in Meteorology from the University of Wisconsin in 1981. As Senior Scientist for Climate Studies at NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center, Dr. Spencer previously directed research into the development and application of satellite passive microwave remote sensing techniques for measuring global temperature, water vapor, and precipitation. He is co-developer of the original satellite method for precision monitoring of global temperatures from Earth-orbiting satellites. Dr. Spencer also serves as U.S. Team Leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer for EOS (AMSR-E) flying on NASA’s Terra satellite. He has authored numerous research articles in scientific journals, and has provided congressional testimony several times on the subject of global warming.


See also :

Shock News : “Heat Island Effect” Warms Temperature Data

The data doesn’t matter. We’re not basing our recommendations
on the data. We’re basing them on the climate models
– Prof. Chris Folland,
Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research

It doesn’t matter what is true,
it only matters what people believe is true
– Paul Watson,
co-founder of Greenpeace

“As we all know, this isn’t about truth at all, its about plausibly deniable accusations.”

– Michael E. Mann | Climategate Emails


Source : EPA, 2008

What Is an Urban Heat Island?

As urban areas develop, changes occur in their landscape. Buildings, roads, and other infrastructure replace open land and vegetation. Surfaces that were once permeable and moist become impermeable and dry.1 These changes cause urban regions to become warmer than their rural surroundings, forming an “island” of higher temperatures in the landscape.

Heat islands occur on the surface and in the atmosphere. On a hot, sunny summer day, the sun can heat dry, exposed urban surfaces, such as roofs and pavement, to temperatures 50–90°F (27–50°C) hotter than the air,2 while shaded or moist surfaces—often in more rural surroundings—remain close to air temperatures. Surface urban heat islands are typically present day and night, but tend to be strongest during the day when the sun is shining.

Basic Information | Heat Island Effect | U.S. EPA

UHI Observations via Real Science :

1967 : Scientific American Reported 4 Degrees UHI In DC

Posted on Real Science January 13, 2014

UHI causes temperatures to rise as suburban sprawl spreads. NOAA and NASA have responded by making massive adjustments in the wrong direction.


Science – Cities Make Their Own Weather – View Article –

Sometimes when you are a government scientist saving the planet, you just have to commit massive scientific fraud.


Hansen Celebrating A Quarter Century Clueless About UHI

Posted on Real Science December 18, 2013 by 

Hansen still can’t find the UHI, 25 years later.

U.S. Data Since 1895 Fail To Show Warming Trend

Published: January 26, 1989

What About Urbanization? One aspect of the study that Dr. Hanson said was interesting was the finding that the urbanization of the United States has apparently not had a statistically significant effect on average temperature readings. A number of scientists have theorized that the replacement of forests and pastures by asphalt streets and concrete buildings, which retain heat, is an important cause of rising temperatures.

U.S. Data Since 1895 Fail To Show Warming Trend – Page 2 – New York Times

This would be same UHI effect which scientists measured in 1907.

ScreenHunter_392 Dec. 18 16.53

Papers Past — Otago Witness — 9 January 1907 — MAN CHANGES CLIMATE.


Fort Collins – A Classic Study in UHI

Posted on September 16, 2013by 

The weather station at Fort Collins is located on the CSU campus, and hasn’t moved for over a hundred years. Unlike most of the US, it shows a strong increase in the number of record maximums, and a strong decrease in record minimums.



The weather station started out in the middle of a farm, and is now in the middle of a very busy parking lot and bus terminal.

In 1937, the station was located in the middle of a farm,


By 1950, the area was starting to get built up.


By 1969, the city had surrounded the weather station.


Now it is in the middle of a parking lot.


It must be the CO2.


Confusing UHI With Global Warming


Two hundred years before Hansen, Thomas Jefferson was an ardent believer in global warming – until Noah Webster explained to him that he was confusing UHI effects with climate.

In his 1787 book, Notes on the State of Virginia, Jefferson launched into a discussion of the climate of both his home state and America as a whole. Near the end of a brief chapter addressing wind currents, rain and temperature, he presented a series of tentative conclusions: “A change in our climate…is taking place very sensibly. Both heats and colds are become much more moderate within the memory of the middle-aged. Snows are less frequent and less deep….The elderly inform me the earth used to be covered with snow about three months in every year. The rivers, which then seldom failed to freeze over in the course of the winter, scarcely ever do so now.” Concerned about the destructive effects of this warming trend, Jefferson noted how “an unfortunate fluctuation between heat and cold” in the spring has been “very fatal to fruits.”

Webster concluded by rejecting the crude warming theory of Jefferson and Williams in favor of a more subtle rendering of the data. The conversion of forests to fields, he acknowledged, has led to some microclimatic changes—namely, more windiness and more variation in winter conditions. But while snow doesn’t stay on the ground as long, that doesn’t necessarily mean the country as a whole gets less snowfall each winter: “We have, in the cultivated districts, deep snow today, and none tomorrow; but the same quantity of snow falling in the woods, lies there till spring….This will explain all the appearances of the seasons without resorting to the unphilosophical hypothesis of a general increase in heat.

Webster’s words essentially ended the controversy. While Jefferson continued to compile and crunch temperature data after his retirement from the presidency, he never again made the case for global warming.

Jefferson had no idea that people reproducing his error would two hundred years later become the basis for destroying the democracy he created. Unlike Jefferson, Hansen is incapable of learning from his mistakes.


The following links detail how temperature data has been ‘adjusted’. What stands out is that the adjustments invariably seem to be massaged adjusted the illogical way. That is, the past, with less urbanisation, is “cooled” and the present, with greater urbanisation, is “heated”.

One could only assume that the impetus for reversing logic, would be to fit the narrative that human’s are frying the atmosphere with their evil gases. Nahh, that’s just a climate denier, conspiracy theory…

Australia Massaged Adjustment / UHI Related :

Related :

Quote Source – The Green Agenda