The globe may have only warmed by 0.41 to 0.83°C in the last 140 years.
According to a new study, weather station data has been shown to non-climatically and erroneously record warmer-than-actual temperatures due to the steady and perpetual aging process almost universally observed in temperature gauges.
When a weather station temperature gauge’s white paint or white plastic ages and darkens, this allows more solar radiation to be absorbed by the gauge than when the gauge is bright white and new. Within a span of just 2 to 5 years, a gauge has been observed to record maximum temperatures 0.46°C to 0.49°C warmer than in gauges that have not undergone an aging process. This artificial warming is not corrected in modern data sets, and it builds up over time – even when the gauges are cleaned or resurfaced every few years.
If these systematic artificial warming errors were to be corrected rather than ignored, the 140-year (1880-’90 to 2010-’20) GISTEMP global warming trend plummets from the current estimate of +1.43°C down to +0.83°C, a 42% differential. The temperature reduction can be even more pronounced – from +1.43°C down to +0.41°C – if a set of conservative assumptions (described in detail in the paper) are removed.
Image Source: Büsing, 2024
Interestingly, when the systematically erroneous temperature data are removed, or homogenized, at different intervals of time (2 years vs. 12 to 30 years, etc.), the global temperature trend – indeed, the long-term global warming trend – can be shown to effectively disappear, depending on the time interval. This can be observed below, in Figure 7.
As this chart illustrates, temperature data can homogenized, or adjusted, to exhibit just about any trend or non-trend the creator of the chart intends to. Data can be bent and manipulated to show strong warming, weak warming, or even no warming over the last 140 years.
Perhaps the modern version of global warming is not nearly as unprecedented or even unusual as it is purported to be.
THe GHE is overstated 100 to 1 because the theory says GHGs emit all the radiation they absorb, but reality is they conduct 99% of the energy they absorb to bring all the 99% non-GHGs at each altitude into local thermal equilibrium (the same temperature). Since the GHE is overstate 100 to 1, therefore AGW which is based on the GHE is overstated 100 to 1.
Interesting hypothesis!
What about satellite measurements then? UAH, e.g., shows essentially the same trend as the 2m measurements. Are satellite sensors also made from aging white plastic, or painted white?
There were no satellite data in 1880.
GISTEMP V4 data from 1979 to 2023 show also an higher trend than the UAH low troposphere global temperatures.
Anyway, GISTEMP V4 data have many problems, particularly with respect to the Northern Hemisphere (The SH data are almost meaningless, with almost no weather stations and dubious interpolations) :
– according to the National Academy Of Sciences in 1975, the [Northern] hemisphere had cooled 0.7C since the 1930s, and was colder than it was at the turn of century.
– Northern Hemisphere GISTEMP V4 are thus in blatant contradiction with the National Academy of Science 1975 statement.
https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v4/
” temperature data can homogenized, or adjusted, to exhibit just about any trend or non-trend the creator of the chart intends to. Data can be bent and manipulated to show strong warming, weak warming, or even no warming over the last 140 years.”
Talking about political science! Better politicized climate science.
What a sorry state of affairs…..
Link https://doi.org/10.53234/scc202408/21 -> DOI Not Found
Try this DOI:
https://doi.org/10.53234/scc202407/21
What a surprise…
https://scienceofclimatechange.org/wp-content/uploads/SCC-Buesing-Weather-Station-Ageing-V4.2.pdf
THanks for the correct link.
THere is a chapter 5.1 in the paper devoted to comparisons with the satellite data, such as the UAH.
THe results seem to be legit.
[…] From NoTricksZone […]
fantastic blog
[…] silmiini sattui uutisjuttu (Linkki), jossa väitettiin lämpömittausjärjestelmien vanhenemisen tuottavan aineiston […]
[…] a serious question – why did they bother to locate the screen outside in the open air? The paintwork would have lasted much longer in one of the greenhouses and the thermometer readings likely equally unrepresentative. This site […]