The media has jumped on a new announcement that "Europe is warming twice as fast as the global average". Here: Europe’s climate warming at twice rate of global average, claims WMO | NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT (wordpress.com) this scare story is debunked using actual data. It is notable that none of the mainstream media ever even tries to challenge these scary announcements. I guess it is so much easier to just go along with sticking to the official narrative.
This is the true headline: "THE UK IS WARMING AT LESS THAN HALF THE RATE OF THE GLOBAL AVERAGE" - You won't be seeing that announcement on any mainstream media.
Its clear to me that the warming has been specifically named with a number of .5*C per decade. Which in reality is huge.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.carbonbrief.org/daily-brief/europe-is-warming-faster-than-any-other-continent-un-finds/
Europe is warming faster than any other continent, UN finds
Axios Read Article
Several publications cover new findings from the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) showing that, says Axios, “temperatures in Europe are increasing twice as fast as in any other continent on Earth”. It adds that Europe has warmed by 0.5C per decade over the past 30 years, a rate only exceeded by the Arctic and parts of Antarctica. The outlet adds: “European warming is having sweeping changes on the environment, including melting mountain glaciers and more severe and persistent extreme weather events.” Reuters says Europe has warmed “more than twice as much as the rest of the world over the past three decades”, with the global average being just 0.2C per decade. It quotes WMO secretary-general Petteri Taalas saying: “Europe presents a live picture of a warming world and reminds us that even well prepared societies are not safe from impacts of extreme weather events.” The Guardian says of the findings: “The European State of the Climate report, produced with the EU’s Copernicus service, warns that as the warming trend continues, exceptional heat, wildfires, floods and other climate breakdown outcomes will affect society, economies and ecosystems.” The Independent and MailOnline also have the story.
Yes, as I say in the post above, the announcements seem very scary - but when the FACTS are revealed they tell a completely different story. Apparently this 0.5C per decade figure is arrived at by some discredited "homogenization" method, but when you look at the data from long-term temperature records they reveal that actually show that there has been NO WARMING OVER EUROPE THIS CENTURY. to see where this figure comes from you need to read the linked article.
ReplyDeleteTHe air over the oceans are moderated by the oceans. Land temperature increase will be higher all over the world. If you choose to open the link, you will see Europe graphed out compared to the rest of the world.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.eea.europa.eu/ims/global-and-european-temperatures
Figure 1. Global (left) and European land (right) average near-surface temperatures relative to the pre-industrial period 1850-1900
Global and European temperatures
Global mean near-surface temperature between 2012 and 2021 was 1.11 to 1.14°C warmer than the pre-industrial level, which makes it the warmest decade on record. European land temperatures have increased even faster over the same period by 1.94 to 1.99°C, depending on the dataset used. The UNFCCC member countries have committed in the Paris Agreement to limiting global temperature increase to well below 2°C above the pre-industrial level and to aim to limit the increase to 1.5°C. Without drastic cuts in global greenhouse gas emissions, even the 2°C limit will already be exceeded before 2050.
As I wrote, above, this new data has been obtained by subjecting the raw data to intensive tampering such as "homogenization". I will be putting out a new post tomorrow which highlights some of the worst fraud.
ReplyDeleteAs I have pointed out in my other comments, homogenization is part of making the temperature data sets more accurate. That is a false flag put out by the deniers of global warming.
DeleteThis conclusion of the article of a very thorough analysis of the temperature records. All the different temperature records come to the same conclusion. The interesting part of this is that the raw data is not the accurate data of the temperatures. Much of the data needs to be corrected so that it better represents the true temperature of those individual stations. The assumption I see is that homogenization is the work of the devil here, when it is actually good science for a more accurate representation of the changing climate temperature.
ReplyDeletehttps://skepticalscience.com/surface-temperature-measurements-advanced.htm
Conclusions
The well-known and widely-cited reconstructions of global temperature, produced by NASA GISS, UEA CRU, and NOAA NCDC, are replicable.
Independent studies using different software, different methods, and different data sets yield very similar results.
The increase in temperatures since 1975 is a consistent feature of all reconstructions, and is also a feature found in reconstructions from natural temperature proxy measurements. This increase cannot be explained as an artifact of the adjustment process, the decrease in station numbers, or other non-climatological factors.
From the graph is this article homogenization actually decreases the temperature change record. Homogenization is an important science process.
ReplyDeletehttps://skepticalscience.com/homogenization_of_temperature_data.html
Figure 1: The global temperature record (smoothed) with different combinations of land and ocean adjustments.
There is a great deal of information in this article explaining the process of science temperature data. This really gets into the weeds of the science.
ReplyDeletehttps://skepticalscience.com/homogenization_of_temperature_data.html
Conclusions
The report asks and attempts to answer a number of questions about temperature homogenization, summarized below (but note the new results described above).
Are there inhomogeneities in the data?
Yes, there are.
Are those inhomogeneities of a form which would be explained by sporadic changes in the measuring apparatus or protocols?
Yes, the largest inhomogeneities are explained by sporadic changes in offset in the temperature readings.
Can those inhomogeneities be detected by comparing records from neighbouring stations?
Yes, most stations have other nearby stations with substantially similar records.
Is there sufficient redundancy in the data to allow those inhomogeneities to be corrected?
Yes, tests using multiple benchmark datasets suggest that inhomogeneities can be corrected.
Does the Global Historical Climatology Network (GHCN) method produce reasonable estimates of the size of the adjustments?
Yes, both neighbouring stations and reanalysis data support the GHCN adjustments.
Do the observations support the presence of a trend in the homogenization adjustments?
Yes, both methods suggest that the adjustments should have a slightly skewed distribution.
Is there evidence that trend in the adjustments could be an artifact of the methods?
Two possible sources of bias in the method were tested and eliminated.
If the data are correctly homogenized, how large a change will be introduced in the global temperature trend?
The size of the required correction to the global record is much harder to determine than the direction. The simple methods described in this report cannot provide an absolute answer. The most I can say is that the GHCN correction looks plausible.
You state: "All the different temperature records come to the same conclusion." What you mean is that all the data sets they choose come to the same conclusion. The data in the article in my post does NOT come to the same conclusion. Neither does the satellite data, which should be regarded as, by far, the most accurate data. It is now clear that much of the "science" has ben corrupted making it very difficult for the people to know what is true. Take a look at my next post to see what has been going on.
ReplyDeleteMy point is that the deep dive into the data shows across the board, we are warming. I have use this site quite a bit when confronted with the very same point you are making. This shows the trends of the various data sets of temperatures. What will remain the same is the time period of 1900 to 2022 and what I will vary is the different data sets. There are 15 different data sets on here and all of them show pos trends in warming. This is what makes the really high confidence level the earth is warming. The same goes for the human fingerprint of warming. It is across the science showing us with high levels of confidence, humans are warming the earth.
Deletehttps://skepticalscience.com/trend.php
gis temp v3
rend: 0.092 ±0.009 °C/decade (2σ)
GISTEMPv4
Trend: 0.095 ±0.010 °C/decade (2σ)
Berkeley
Trend: 0.102 ±0.008 °C/decade (2σ)
HadCRUT4krig v2
Trend: 0.084 ±0.009 °C/decade (2σ)
...with HadSST4
Trend: 0.090 ±0.009 °C/decade (2σ)
All of the above were global datsets
The next two are labeled non global
HadCRUT4
Trend: 0.083 ±0.009 °C/decade (2σ)
NOAA
Trend: 0.086 ±0.010 °C/decade (2σ)
The next 4 are satellite the satellite will be a much shorter trend since the satellites aren't until about 1980
RSSv4.0 TLT
Trend: 0.214 ±0.052 °C/decade (2σ)
RSSv4.0 TTT
Trend: 0.173 ±0.050 °C/decade (2σ)
UAHv5.6 TLT
Trend: 0.155 ±0.061 °C/decade (2σ)
UAHv6.0 TLT
Trend: 0.135 ±0.049 °C/decade (2σ)
the next 4 are labeled non current
RSSv3.3 TTT
Trend: 0.128 ±0.055 °C/decade (2σ)
RSSv3.3 TLT
Trend: 0.134 ±0.057 °C/decade (2σ)
Karl(2015)
Trend: 0.085 ±0.010 °C/decade (2σ)
Karl(2015) global
Trend: 0.085 ±0.012 °C/decade (2σ)
RSSv3.3 TTT
All satellite data shows warming. Even in the sets of the UAH who had an AMerican that was cheating on it skewing the data.
Delete