Davin News Server

On Sat, 17 May 2025 08:48:27 -0700,  Alan says...  

> > They keep pushing that fake narrative even though only idiots believe
> > it.
> 
> 'Key Points
> 
> Heat waves are occurring more often than they used to in major cities 

YES!

https://i.imgur.com/8xVC7k6.mp4

=====

SOLAR - This is Spain... is this what you voted for? Where hundreds of thousands of old olive trees are being ripped out to build 
massive solar factories. Trees, bees and insects all wiped out leaving increased temperatures caused by the heat island effect of 
the panels. It isn't a transition, it's destruction disguised as progress

https://video.twimg.com/amplify_video/1920010306228535296/vid/avc1/720x952/f5cMNWPvKmEZpUsi.mp4?tag=16

=====

The proper way to frame the new urban heat island paper is to say that the urban heat island effect is responsible for two-thirds 
of the fake temperatures that make up "global warming."

The most recent "global warming" trend may have started 20, 000 years ago and has been fueled by a variety of natural factors. 

https://x.com/JunkScience/status/1905815501462176188

https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GrJ6yWwWkAIyxtX?format=png&name=4096x4096

=====

Many recent reports about very hot days at Phoenix somehow manage to avoid mentioning increasing Urban Heat Island (UHI) and 
temperature sensor placement issues - and both are man-made issues - and not CO2.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GaKxTe6XUAAgFrH?format=jpg&name=medium

=====


Our Urban Heat Island Paper Has Been Published
May 15th, 2025 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.

It took the better part of two years to satisfy the reviewers, but finally our paper Urban Heat Island Effects in U.S. Summer 
Surface Temperature Data, 1895-2023 has been published in the AMS Journal of Applied Meteorology and Climatology.

To quickly summarize, we used the average temperature differences between nearby GHCN stations and related those to population 
density (PD) differences between stations. Why population density? Well, PD datasets are global, and one of the PD datasets goes 
back to the early 1800s, so we can compute how the UHI effect has changed over time. The effect of PD on UHI temperature is 
strongly nonlinear, so we had to account for that, too. (The strongest rate of warming occurs when population just starts to 
increase beyond wilderness conditions, and it mostly stabilizes at very high population densities; This has been known since 
Oke's original 1973 study).

We then created a dataset of UHI warming versus time at the gridpoint level by calibrating population density increases in terms 
of temperature increase.

The bottom line was that 65% of the U.S. linear warming trend between 1895 and 2023 was due to increasing population density at 
the suburban and urban stations; 8% of the warming was due to urbanization at rural stations. Most of that UHI effect warming 
occurred before 1970.

But this does not necessarily translate into NOAA's official temperature record being corrupted at these levels. Read on... 

What Does This Mean for Urbanization Effects in the Official U.S. Temperature Record?

That's a good question, and I don't have a good answer.

One of the reviewers, who seemed to know a lot about the homogenization technique used by NOAA, said the homogenized data could 
not be used for our study because the UHI-trends are mostly removed from those data. (Homogenization looks at year-to-year [time 
domain] temperature changes at neighboring stations, not the spatial temperature differences [space domain] like we do). So, we 
were forced to use the raw (not homogenized) U.S. summertime GHCN daily average ([Tmax+Tmin]/2) data for the study. One of the 
surprising things that reviewer claimed was that homogenization warms the past at currently urbanized stations to make their 
less-urbanized early history just as warm as today.

So, I emphasize: In our study, it was the raw (unadjusted) data which had a substantial UHI warming influence. This isn't 
surprising.

But that reviewer of the paper said most of the spurious UHI warming effect has been removed by the homogenization process, which 
constitutes the official temperature record as reported by NOAA. I am not convinced of this, and at least one recent paper claims 
that homogenization does not actually correct the urban trends to look like rural trends, but instead it does "urban blending" of 
the data. As a result, which trends are "preferred" by that statistical procedure are based upon a sort of "statistical voting" 
process (my terminology here, which might not be accurate).

So, it remains to be seen just how much spurious UHI effect there is in the official, homogenized land-based temperature trends. 
The jury is still out on that.

Of course, if sufficient rural stations can be found to do land-based temperature monitoring, I still like Anthony Watts' 
approach of simply not using suburban and urban sites for long-term trends. Nevertheless, most people live in urbanized areas, so 
it's still important to quantify just how much of those "record hot" temperatures we hear about in cities are simply due to 
urbanization effects. I think our approach gets us a step closer to answering that question.

Is Population Density the Best Way to Do This?

We used PD data because there are now global datasets, and at least one of them extends centuries into the past. But, since we 
use population density in our study, we cannot account for additional UHI effects due to increased prosperity even when 
population has stabilized.

For example, even if population density no longer increases over time in some urban areas, there have likely been increases in 
air conditioning use, with more stores and more parking lots, as wealth has increased since, say, the 1970s. We have started 
using a Landsat-based dataset of "impervious surfaces" to try to get at part of this issue, but those data only go back to the 
mid-1970s. But it will be a start.



============================================================================

THIS Is Why Chicken Shit Chicken Littles Screech About Climate And Weather And Global Warbling:

The UN Makes it Official: Global Warming Hysteria Is All About Redistributing Wealth

UN IPCC Official Admits 'We Redistribute World's Wealth By Climate Policy' 

Global Study Reveals Wealth Redistribution From Blue-Carbon Ecosystems

Failed Climate Policies Are About Wealth Redistribution 

"We Redistribute De Facto The World's Wealth By Climate Policy."

How Global Warming Has Made The Rich Richer
https://www.bbc.com/worklife/article/20190502-how-global-warming-has-made-the-rich-richer

The U.N.'s Global Warming War On Capitalism: An Important History Lesson
https://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2013/01/22/the-u-n-s-global-warming-war-on-capitalism-an-important-history-lesson-2/?sh=
4f89a2d429be

The Doha Wealth Redistribution Process Moves On
https://townhall.com/columnists/davidrothbard/2012/12/14/the-doha-wealth-redistribution-process-moves-on-n1465410

=====

"There is no doubt, that we need to have a complete transformation... the transformation of the economy, and that includes, of 
course, the private sector."

A carbon tax will change NOTHING, other than the wealth of politicians and countries who beg us for money. THAT was the  purpose 
of the Paris Accord... the ONLY purpose.

Funny... when the government no longer pays for bogus money-grabbing data, the truth comes out.

"It's all about money in the end. Keeping the Gravy Train running."
https://youtu.be/J9Oi7x2OBdI?t=74

"And we're like... the world is going to end in 12 years if we don't address climate change..."

AOC's Top Aide Admits Green New Deal About The Economy, Not Climate
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/aocs-top-aide-admits-green-new-deal-
about-the-economy-not-the-climate

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's chief of staff recently admitted that the Green New Deal was not conceived as an effort to deal 
with climate change, but instead a "how-do-you-change-the-entire economy thing" -- a remark likely to fuel Republican claims that 
the deal is nothing more than a thinly veiled socialist takeover of the U.S. economy. "The interesting thing about the Green New 
Deal is it wasn't originally a climate thing at all," Saikat Chakrabarti said in May, according to The Washington Post.

*****

UN Official Admits That Climate Change Used As A Ruse To Control The World's Economy
http://www.nowtheendbegins.com/diabolical-lie-called-climate-change-used-
un-promote-economic-agenda/

*****

"Unequal Distribution of Wealth and Power" Causes Climate Change
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2015/11/un-climate-summit-causes-of-
climate-change-unequal-distribution-of-wealth-and-power/

*****

U.N. Official Reveals Real Reason Behind Warming Scare 
http://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/climate-change-scare-tool-to-
destroy-capitalism/

*****

Another Climate Alarmist Admits Real Motive Behind Warming Scare 
http://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/another-climate-alarmist-
admits-real-motive-behind-warming-scare/

*****

United Nations Official Admits the Purpose of the Global Warming Hoax is to Destroy Capitalism
http://lubbockonline.com/interact/blog-post/donald-r-may/2015-02-
27/united-nations-official-admits-purpose-global-warming#.V-nGUOM1HmE