The mainstream media continue to fall hook, line and sinker for the tempting alarmist bait set by urban heat corruptions. The Guardian said a record was set this year in the U.S. city of Phoenix during a “hellishly hot summer” with the most hot days over 110°F. The BBC’s report on Phoenix took the opportunity to add that heatwaves are becoming more frequent and intense, “because of human-induced climate change”. It is often hellishly hot in the desert state of Arizona, and in fact last summer was the warmest in Phoenix going back to 1933. But strip out the heat created in the ever-expanding concrete and tarmacked metropolis, and it turns out the area was only the 11th warmest on record.
If the record hot summer in Phoenix was due to global warming, as claimed in almost all media, then it would show up at weather stations surrounding the city – “right?” asks Dr. Roy Spencer at the University of Alabama in Huntsville (UAH). As regular readers will recall, Dr. Spencer and his UAH colleague Professor John Christy have been engaged in a recent project to determine the extent of urban heat corruptions in cities. Dr. Spencer took the official surface temperature data for Sky Harbor Phoenix Airport, shown by the red curve in the graph above, and compared it to all rural stations within 10-100 kms of Phoenix. Spencer concludes that the urban heat island effect was the dominant cause of the summer records in Phoenix.
In fact the gap between the red and green lines could be larger since Spencer notes that he used rural data from the U.S. weather service NOAA that had been ‘homogenised’, a controversial process that often leads to rural data being equalised with surrounding areas. According to Spencer, there are unsupportable conclusions being drawn about the supposed role of climate change in the record high temperatures being reported in some U.S. cities. He adds: “Cities are hotter than their rural surroundings, and increasingly so, with or without climate change.” This can lead to extra warmth of up to 10°F, mostly at night, he finds.
The scale of the urban heat corruption is laid out in wider research recently published by Spencer and Christy. They note they are preparing to publish their first paper looking at temperature data across the lower American 48 States with the dramatic conclusion that summer warming between 1895-2023 in U.S. cities has been exaggerated by 100%. Across the United States, much of which is rural, the urban heat effect is placed at a significant 24%. The data investigated are taken from version four of NOAA’s Global Historical Climatology Network, which is an important constituent part of global temperature datasets such as the Met Office’s HadCRUT. The subsequent corruption of the global figures used to promote Net Zero is an issue that seems to be of little interest to most media.
Spencer and Christy calculate the urban heat effect by using satellite maps and data to compute how temperatures change with population density across thousands of closely-spaced pairs of weather stations. Previous ongoing reports on their work have highlighted the heat corruptions at airports, the most startling proving to be Orlando in Florida.
The above graph shows that the raw data for the international airport suggested warming of 0.3°C a decade, but the ‘de-urbanised’ figure fell to just 0.07°C. Airport readings are popular among alarmist-minded weather services around the world. In the U.K., the Met Office frequently quotes the temperature at Heathrow, while on July 19th last year, it declared a record high of 40.3°C halfway down a runway in use by three Typhoon fighter jets landing at RAF Coningsby.
The recent U.S. summer was the 13th warmest in the record if adjusted for the effect of urbanisation, says Spencer. The heat was not consistent across the continent, with over a dozen cities in the south said to be in record territory, while milder conditions were found elsewhere. Needless to say, the Guardian went into full catastrophe mode, speculating that this could be the “new normal”. Climate scientists say the heat and other extreme weather is in line with three decades of scientific prediction amid humanity’s relentless carbon emissions. “It might, in fact, be the tip of the iceberg compared with what is to come,” adds the speculation-rich Guardian.
It is a little warmer in parts of the planet at the moment, a mostly natural process probably due in part to the effects of a developing El Niño and, possibly, the extra 13% water vapour in the stratosphere due to last year’s Hunga-Tonga submarine volcanic eruption. Spencer shows how the heat bait is set and happily swallowed by narrative-driven mainstream media. “A city has record warming, so it must be due to global warming caused by burning fossil fuel,” he explains, “but what role does climate change have in these recordings at selected cities? Most of what we hear through the media comes from urban reporting stations, or at least airports serving major urban areas.”
Or in the U.K., he might have observed, from readings collected at airports with temperature-measuring devices placed only a few metres from powerful after-burning military jets.
Chris Morrison is the Daily Sceptic’s Environment Editor.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
The argument holds a certain amount of water, for me, though I can’t help thinking there have always been and will always be boys who look up to people like Tate, as indeed there are always people of all ages and both sexes who look up to or at least hanker after less than ideal role models – and I am not even sure “role model” is necessarily an applicable term a lot of the time. There are people with pretty disastrous lives who try to live like some idiot from social media or TV or whatever, but a lot of people just find those kind of people mildly interesting/distracting/amusing/titillating and don’t seriously try to emulate them. I’m not saying that’s ideal, but I am not sure that there be too much hand-wringing about it.
But yes, more properly decent men with what have been traditionally identified as more “masculine” qualities would be a better outlet. I like the “chivalry” idea.
Gangsters and criminals aren’t the even close to being the richest people. Unless he means….
Based on my own first hand experience, my impression is that teenage boys are sick to the teeth of wokeness.
I think this guy is right on the money, but it’s a message Jordan Peterson has been putting out for quite a few years now. Maybe it’s gathering momentum.
“Chivalry is the thing that we’re missing today…”. Hmmm. Most of us associate chivalry with being courteous, particularly with women e.g. opening doors, taking off your coat to put around your wife, paying the bill etc. Putting women before yourself. But this is based on the belief that women need/want to be looked after and almost all women in today’s society have made it crystal clear that they do not want this, so why chivalry? What’s the incentive to be chivalrous to the angry woman that gives you the hand gesture in her car? The woman that pushes in at the bar? All the women who’ve been telling men that masculinity is evil and they are sh*t? All the women (a couple on here) that reply to questions about feminism by trying to mock and humiliate (male tears, male fragility, male this, male that etc)? No, chivalry is not the problem; the problem is why there is no incentive to be chivalrous. Over to you ladies.
Agree, Chivalry on one hand requires grace on the other.
Andrew Tate appears to be yet another figure of hate for the easily triggered. He isn’t. He’s playing the ‘toxic male’ role perfectly, interspersed with some really astute analysis of our crazy world. He really is smarter than he looks, and the simple thinkers of the left can’t rationalise that.
Don’t agree. Most women I know absolutely love to be treated like ladies, but of course without being patronising.
I think the idea that all women don’t want that is created in the same way that the idea that we all want a gender-free, gender-fluid, racially hypersensitive world.
For some reason you’ve missed out an important part of what I posted i.e. “and almost all women in today’s society…”. You confuse me tbh. You post about the problems with feminism and so you know that feminists do not want to be treated differently in any way, but then you post that all the women you know want to be “treated like ladies”. What does that even mean in today’s world? It’s almost like you’re trying to earn brownie points after knowing you’ve lost favour. Look, you’re a good poster, but be consistent at least. And please tell me the planet you’re on because I want to be on it. Deep down women may want to be treated like ‘ladies’, but that sure as hell isn’t what they tell everyone or how most women behave
I don’t see the inconsistency. Most women I know aren’t feminists, they’re normal people who recognise that men and women are different and who aren’t offended by gentlemanly behaviour, but the opposite.
That doesn’t mean I don’t know the odd feminist or that I’m not a bit familiar with feminist ideology.
Both are possible, no?
Please read your own previous posts chap. You are now saying feminism is NOT a problem. Your own posts will answer your own question about inconsistency.
That’s a very degraded idea of it. The whole serve the weak concept actually is, because chivalry is a property of knights who serve someone strong, namely, the king.
The weak only appear here because chivalry is about knight’s code of honour and unprovoked attacks on someone who’s very much weaker aren’t honourable because no bravery is required for that: Everyone can attack the relatively defenseless, that’s a typical course of action of pompous cowards who want to show off (often for the members of the unfairer sex :->) but don’t want to risk anything while doing so.
Another important proper of someone that’s honourable, alongside with courage, is politeness, ie, proper behaviour towards others, even if those others perhaps wouldn’t behave propery themselves. It’s extremely impolite to let a door slam into someone’s face, hence, when there’s someone close behind you, hold it until he or she had a chance to get it themselves. I usually let it slam if people mistake me for their private door opener and don’t take it over once they can reach it. This has nothing to do with putting woman before myself, it’s just the kind of courtesy one should extend to everyone unless there’s individual, good reason not to. If people try to berate me for that, they’re acting implolitely, that is, dishonourably, which implies that their blathering doesn’t matter.
So many words, such little meaning. You seem to misunderstand the difference between politeness and chivalry. Oh, and thanks for the history lesson. Enlightening. Thank God for Google aye?
At least, I don’t need 29 words soley to express I didn’t understand any of this plus a bit of seriously bizarre abuse exemplifying how completely you didn’t understand any of this. If that’s your typical behaviour, your apparently typical experiences with woman don’t surprise me.
When articles like this pop up it’s the same bitter individuals with an obvious axe to grind repeating the same, tired old sexist tripe who react. They can’t resist apparently. You can put money on who will respond and what they will say by now.
Much like the mask articles, I dont get involved as there’s nothing further to add and I’ve made my views perfectly clear on these matters by now.
Just stopped by to say great comment though. A non-hostile man who doesn’t have ‘woman issues’. How refreshing on here!
Bingo. As always with you. Thanks.
I have sort-of a middle position here: I know what FreeLemming is referring to and I really both dislike and disagree with these people. It’s just that their statements don’t concern me — there’s a German saying Leute reden viel wenn der Tag lang ist — during a long day, people will talk a lot. I’m also from a different cultural background and most of what is called (toxic or non-toxic) masculinity here is – in my opinion – simply bad behaviour of people who could have done with an education. My idea of conduct that’s appropriate for a man (not male) simply doesn’t include – to use a somewhat infamous example – having sex with a blind-drunk female student behind a row of refuse bins.
The reason why Tate is not a good role model is because he’s essentially the male equivalent of a self-licking ice cream cone: As far as I know this, everything he does is about him. That’s not how a man should behave.
Somebody give me a clue as I can’t be bothered to google it.
Who is Andrew Tate?
Can’t help you Judy.
I’m up here in Australia and have also not heard of him.
Assuming he’s a brash chauvinist, doesn’t seem surprising that telling white boys they are the root of all evil and everyone else is a victim pushes them towards someone with an opposite and simplistic view of manhood.
Thanks for that Dr G – I am in Thailand so maybe someone from the UK will enlighten me?
Former council estate kid made good via a career in martial arts culminating in being a World Champion kick-boxer. Since made many millions through websites for grown-ups, and various other business interests. Has a very simple and clear view of what an alpha-male is, and isn’t shy in being one. Into conspicuous consumption via million pound cars. The epitome of toxic masculinity to many on the left, competitive, ambitious, successful. In some ways he reminds me of a Hugh Hefner for the new generation. He’s worth listening to for some interesting angles on the ‘patriarchy’, but there’s no doubt in my mind he is playing a character to annoy just the right people.
I’d really love to see on of these alpha males compete with a machine gun. Or try to out-run a horse.
Same here but he doesn’t sound like my cup of tea.
Former kick-boxer turned person-in-the-online-sex-business who’s also a limited-scale internet celebrity.
Tate is an actor, a performer, a brand. Of course boys want to emulate him: he is rich, successful with women and gives off an aura of supreme self confidence.
The establishment is doing its best to destroy men, masculinity and manly role models. The mainstream push the idea of toxic masculinity and radical feminism to the point that boys have become seen as dysfunctional girls. Big government are replacing the need for competent men by acting as sugar daddy for single mothers and loser men.
This is no time for chivalry. In fact being the chivalrous nice guy provider can make boys even more unattractive to women. Some say that the average girl prefers the “bad boy”, not the “white knight” (at least until their biological clock tells them it’s time to settle down with a resource provider after they’ve spent their peak years being run through by all the studs). Time for boys to be more like Tate: look after themselves (ignore the blandishments and advice emanating from our corrupt institutions) and to hell with what they say!
I agree with the little I’ve read of Knowland, but I can’t help thinking we need a better word than chivalry, which to anyone who understands the term probably has connotations of the ‘knights of yore’, Jane Austen, and so on. And the qualities we’re looking for don’t apply only to how males treat females, but more generally to the respect and care of our neighbour – a distinctly, though not exclusively, Christian idea.
There is a short story written by Paul Gallico about a woman trying to decide which man to marry. One of the characters tells her to evaluate kindness as it is a trait which outlasts love, passion, drama, emotion etc. I have always thought it is a good measure of a person, especially a man, (a caveat being that kindness to animals but not to humans is a red flag).