« Latest & Greatest IPCC Climate Models Still Unable To Simulate Major Components Of Earth's Climate | Main | Latest Report From NOAA Confirms U.S. Drought Is Not Extreme Climate Change »


Richard Allison

Has anyone ever considered external factors such as solar radiation anomomilies? The sun is in an active solar period and in fact I have read articles that temperatures on Mars and other planets are experiencing higher temps? I think the issue is too complicated for scientists that are receiving money for studies from politicians to support political issues. Climate change is a means to tax and generate money for a global government. It is all about money.. I reject the whole THEORY of man made global warming.

Neil Ferguson

Dear Editor,
Thank you very much for your response.
First, Doh. I meant "lower" not "higher", as implied by the rest of the first paragraph. That's my story, anyway.
Second, I am supposing that instrument and measurement methodology errors (e.g. time of day inconsistencies) revealed by USCRN will call for adjustments to all historical raw temperature measurements that are fairly constant over the past 150 years, allowing for variations in equipment and similar technical distinctions. To over-simplify, I am supposing that USCRN justifies going through all historical records and subtracting a more or less constant X degrees from each measurement. If my supposition is true, aren't we still left with the same magnitude and pattern of warming claimed by warmists?
Third, when I say "warmists have dismissed the issue", I am not trying to make a rhetorical argument. As I understand the state of the controversy, the Watts Surface Station Project found that Yes, there's a big UHI effect in populated areas, but No, it's not statistically important with respect to the average global temperature. (Warmists eagerly agree with the second clause, anyhow.) I hope very much I don't have that conclusion right. I hope that Watts has found that UHI explains most of the warming. But if I do have it right, does even the larger UHI implied by USCRN make a difference?
Fourth, yeah, warmist claims of "hottest", "record setting" are a crock. Your points are germane to USCRN, I guess, if tangential to my question.
Fifth, I am perfectly willing to stipulate that the warmists have trashed the historical record. Unless my understanding of UHI effects is wrong, I don't see how USCRN helps the skeptics to refute warmist claims for the historical record.
With greatest respect,
Neil Ferguson

C3 editor

First, the absolute temperatures as measured by the new technology and 'pristine' sites are lower than ones being recorded by the older stations, not "higher."

Second, a linear trend is not an accurate projection for the future. The slope (rate of change) is changing constantly. For example, over the last 15 years the NCDC has the rate of change of U.S. temperatures at a minus -1.7 degrees F per century through July 2012 (surprise!). However, for the 15 year period ending July 1934, the rate of change was plus +8.6 degrees F per century (bigger surprise!). This article was not about rate of change, but if it was, the alarmists manage to hoist themselves on their own petard with it.

Third, "warmists have dismissed the issue" is a rhetorical argument without merit. They have no empirical evidence to refute the major points of skeptics, thus the warmists simply "dismiss" an argument. Or, they statistically torture the data to get a desired result, and more often than not, the tortured techniques used can't stand up to the scrutiny of experts.

Fourth, this large scale NOAA experiment confirms what skeptics have stated before: reported temperatures are significantly contaminated by an UHI effect and other human influences, which completely mocks any warmist claim that a given month, year or decade was the "warmest" or "record setting."

Fifth, this article does not even address the U.S. temperature dataset manipulation admitted to by NOAA that has consistently lowered temperatures prior to 1950 and raised those post 1950. This temperature fabrication not only the impacts the 'rate of change' argument made by warmists, but also makes it a lot easier to create those infamous "warmest" period claims that alarmists always fall back on and are so enamored with.

The policymakers and the public would all benefit if the warmists dropped their lame attempts at defending a very weak AGW hypothesis and instead, start arguing for monies to be spent to better measure other regions of the world using the same technology and standards that NOAA used for USCRN. Of course, the warmists won't argue for this because they know the accurate empirical evidence produced from such a world-wide system is highly likely to destroy the catastrophic global warming hysteria once and for all.


C3 editor

When you consider all the different ways humans can influence temperature, it is likely "measurable" but not large. And even though it may be measurable it is probably not significant in the scheme of the long-term climate.

With that said, correct attribution of the human component of global temperatures appears to be beyond science at this point.

Scott M.

You ask "If every temperature estimate for the past 150 years is 1 deg warmer than the actual temperature, that doesn't change the rate of warming over that period." If it were true, but the temps AREN'T 1 deg linearly higher over the past 150 years. Only in recent years have the legacy reporting stations been including this gradual error - due in part to the growing civilization around their locations. So, the erroneous "rate" of warming" hasn't been continuous, but instead, rising.

Neil Ferguson

Could someone help me out here? It isn't obvious to me that the information in the article supports its conclusion. It shows that the new (USCRN) temperature level is higher than the older (USHCN) figures. But that isn't the fundamental climate issue. The issue is rate of warming. If every temperature estimate for the past 150 years is 1 deg warmer than the actual temperature, that doesn't change the rate of warming over that period.
Assuming the higher UHI impact shown is correct, one might infer that current theory hasn't adequately adjusted for UHI, so exaggerates apparent warming. But that issue has already been raised by skeptics, and warmists have dismissed the issue by explaining that UHI is insignificant because of the population density distribution of USHCN stations. I (total non-scientist) have not seen where this dismissal has been refuted by skeptics. And wasn't it the conclusion of the Andrew Watts Surface Station Project?
Neil Ferguson


If humans had a "measurable" impact on global temperatures we would have measured it. It would be a matter of knowledge not belief. I hope you meant to say humans have a theoretical impact on global temperatures that is too small to measure.

The comments to this entry are closed.