By Jo Nova
Who knew, we can solve global warming by moving suburbs, planting trees, limiting immigration?
A new study used satellite data to look at ten cities around the world to see which parts of cities are the warmest, and how that has changed in the last twenty years as they grew.
It looks like man-made global warming mainly applies to airports and industrial areas. We put most of our thermometers at airports which awkwardly turn out to be 2.5 degrees Celsius warmer than surrounding areas, and presumably warmer than they were 120 years ago when there wasn’t 3 square kilometers of concrete runway there sitting in the sun. Industrial zones were even worse, being 2.8°C hotter. Conversely leafy green areas with a lot of vegetation were nearly 4 degrees cooler than the average. So airports are at least 6 degrees warmer than forests. Places near bodies of water were, not surprisingly, even more than 4 degrees cooler. It’s part of why people pay $5 million for a beachside mansion isn’t it?
The worst climate change in Melbourne is on Boundary Road
One of the ten cities they studied was Melbourne and there is a special mention for Boundary Road in Laverton North where daytime temperatures rose from 22.49 °C in 2001 to 30.82 ° in 2021. So that’s 8 degrees of warming in 20 years, surely the fastest rate of warming in a million years. Bring out your dead?
This 8 degree local warming trend compares to a general city-wide background warming effect over the twenty years of about 0.5°C.
Contrast that apocalypse with the western Quandong region, which is primarily agricultural. There man-made climate change caused a cooling trend of −0.12 °C/year during the day.
Melbourne, Australia: The top graphs are the day time land surface temperatures in 2001 compared to 2021.
The bottom two graphs are the night time temperatures. Figure 12. LST means Land Surface Temperature.
Does anyone really care about the workers in the urban deserts?
The next time a smug Blob Academic panics about how 1.5 degrees of global warming will imperil pregnant women, babies, and cats and dogs, lets ask them if they know of the deadly microclimate threat. If a small rise in temperature is that serious, all the mascots, I mean victims, face a far bigger threat from high density development and unrestrained urban population growth than from coal and gas power plants a hundred miles away. When the experts tell us climate change causes school students marks to fall, or ruins the sleep of senior citizens, we can ask them why they think windmills and solar will cool folks better (or cheaper) than tree canopies? I mean, do they care or don’t they?
And instead of installing 4 million solar panels on rooftops in the hope of shifting ocean currents to cool the suburbs, we could have planted trees instead. And given that we chop down trees that shade the panels, the big question is whether the local heating effect of solar panels can ever be compensated for by altering Antarctic jet streams via carbon reduction. These people are witchdoctors.
The next time the electricity grid managers plot and scheme to switch off our air conditioners at peak times, we can ask them whether tree planting has a better cost-benefit ratio than demand management. Is it cheaper to grow trees or to turn off smelters and factories at 6pm?
I’m sure there’s room for a thousand PhD theses comparing microclimate management as a way to solve “climate change” and I’m also sure most of them will never be done.
If anyone really believes an extra degree is dangerous, the fastest, cheapest fix is air-conditioning with cheap electricity. But in the long run, the lifestyle answer is trees, parks, and ponds. Not “green steel,” not jet-stream manipulation, not billion-dollar grid schemes. Just shade, water, and leaves — the original solar harvesting technology.
The ten cities they compared were spread across the world: Cairo (Africa), Chongqing (Asia), Delhi (Asia), Istanbul (Europe/Asia), Melbourne (Oceania), Mexico City (North America), Moscow (Europe), Nuuk (North America), São Paulo (South America), and Tokyo (Asia).
Details from the paper below:
Airports exhibited a mean daytime land surface temperature (LST) that was 2.5 °C higher than surrounding areas, while industrial zones demonstrated an even greater temperature disparity, with an average increase of 2.81 °C. In contrast, cold spots characterized by dense vegetation showed a notable cooling effect, with LST differences reaching −3.7 °C. Similarly, proximity to water bodies contributed to temperature mitigation, as areas near significant water sources recorded lower daytime LST differences, averaging −4.09 °C.
3.2.5. Melbourne
h/t Esra Taf
REFERENCE
Yiğitalp Kara 1,2,* and Veli Yavuz 1 (2025) Urban Microclimates in a Warming World: Land Surface Temperature (LST) Trends Across Ten Major Cities on Seven Continents, Urban Sci. 2025, 9(4), 115; https://doi.org/10.3390/urbansci9040115
Man made warming applies to airports and industrial areas.
Well that explains the desire to make flights inaccessible to the masses and the great de-industrialisation of the western world.
Maybe we could reverse this if we placed ice buckets around these thermometers. How easy would that be?
290
“Just shade, water, and leaves”
There is no grift to be had planting trees or reserving parks from high rise flats.
Greed rules. Now entrenched in evermore government need to thieve to pay interest at 8% to union backed super.
Expect more “global” warming.
240
‘Well that explains the desire to make flights inaccessible to the masses and the great de-industrialisation’
But of course. Otherwise, like Satan’s pitch, bituminous global warming will darkly ooze from these locations to smother the world. Deep-scienciness.
20
Is the urban heat island idea still a thing in climate science? NB I am not a scientist so this is a genuine question.
110
Petros the UHI effect is the major factor that has cost the OECD TRILLIONs of $ over the last 30 years and that will cost Aussies trillions more $ forever if B O Bowen has his way and using toxic , unreliable and super expensive W & S.
BTW Lomborg told us 20 years ago that big cities could be cooled by planting more trees etc and using white colours for footpaths and roads etc.
320
Jo’s on FIRE!!! Go Jo!!
210
I live in Lakes Entrance, Victoria. We are surrounded by forest, lakes and ocean and each year seems colder than the previous one. The above could be the reason.
360
During a demo of FLIR cameras in helicopters, we saw the hot power lines going into a house 2.5 km away from where the chopper was parked at Essendon airport, Melbourne.
The high electricity use powered a known illegal domestic crystal meth lab. Maybe a group of these houses is another explanation for the temperature changes in the report.
Geoff S
240
Thermal imaging from the air can be used to locate cannabis crops.
https://farmtechx.com/blog/can-helicopters-spot-one-plant-guide
Meth labs seem to be highlighted by excessive power use so are also likely to be detected by aerial surveillance.
Perhaps we transfer UHI monitoring responsibilities to police enforcement?!
20
BTW Dr Christy, Dr Spencer, Dr McKitrick and the Co2 Coalition scientists have warned us for decades that the UHI effect is a major contributor to the so called global warming.
210
Copy that.
‘John Christy, Judith Curry, Steven Koonin, Ross McKitrick, and Roy Spencer—to review the evidence and produce a report questioning the EPA’s 2009 “Endangerment Finding”. (wuwt)
Australia could also take climate change to the courts, my five candidates: William Kininmonth, Tom Quirk, Stewart Franks, Don Aitkin and David Evans.
71
I nominate Ian Plimer.
60
We could replace Don Aitkin with Professor Emeritus Ivan Kennedy.
41
We’ve now recovered from the Little Ice Age so temperatures will most likely continue to slowly cool again in a non linear sequence over the next few thousand years. Regardless of future human activities?
130
That is true and in this brief abstract, from a very reliable source, we read that Australian climate has changed naturally throughout the Holocene.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666033422000144
41
Note how 8 out of 10 cities are in the congested Northern Hemisphere, the ‘land’ hemi, whilst São Paulo & Melburnistan are the sole representatives of our southern ‘water’ hemisphere, even though the austral population is less than 20% of the whole heaving mass of humanity.
Also, in a humble-brag moment, Zealandia is the now-recognised long-lost sunken 8th continent, upon which our 6 million inhabitants cling to the uppermost highlands after The Big Flood ~12,000 ya when [shock!] the glaciers melted 😱 and sea levels rose c.130 metres (400 ft) drowning vast areas and ancient civilisations.
BTW a recent study showed downtown Auckland to be 2-5 degrees warmer than its surrounding bush-clad and coastal suburbs – and the rest of NZ – so yeah, it ain’t global, it’s a witch’s brew of bat-wing, ear of newt, and an UN-healthy dose of Planet Saviour Complex demanding obeisance plus 15% GST which, true to the Edmonds Cook Book promise, is sure to rise.
250
Just had a look at the BOM Melbourne observations page – temps range from 8.8C – 13.6C. What’s the temperature in Melbourne at the moment?
Take your (cherry) pick.
120
Hence the stupidity that there can be a “global average temperature/climate” or a national one.
Both the global and national climate are agglomerations of masses of micro climates. Attempting to average them is stupidity on stilts.
230
BTW global life expectancy was 67.7 years in 2000 and today is about 73.5 years.
Here’s the link from Macrotrends using World bank, UN data etc.
IOW an amazing increase over the last 25 years of 5.8 years and not helped by the global pandemic.
https://www.macrotrends.net/global-metrics/countries/wld/world/life-expectancy
120
World population was about 6.1 billion in 2000 and nearly 8.2 bn today.
https://www.macrotrends.net/global-metrics/countries/wld/world/population
110
Global Warming and extra CO2 must be good then if people are living longer and we are producing more food. Maybe that should be on the front page of evry newspaper.
30
I’ve done this little experiment many times. Left inner city Melbourne suburb at 7pm during summer to drive home in a westerly direction (so past that Boundary Rd location). Usually at that time you can get a good run. Within 20-30 minutes I can be in Melton or even Bacchus Marsh. Very often I have noted a decrease in temperature by 3 degrees, using the car’s external temp on the dashboard. Its not scientific, its only observational, but its true.
230
When calculating carbon dioxide emissions and absorption natural vegetation should be taken into account as common practice. Apparently not by Chris Bowen though. Australia is a robust carbon dioxide sink. Australia’s chief scientist (Dec. 2009). “The Co-operative Research Centre for Greenhouse Accounting has estimated that Australian forests store about 10.5 billion tonnes of carbon (excluding soil carbon)[iii]. This store of solid carbon has accumulated over an assumed life of 100 years for native eucalypt regrowth. That translates to our forests storing an amount of carbon equivalent to almost 38.5 billion tonnes of gaseous carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, about 70 times Australia’s annual net greenhouse gas emission.”
It’s even better than that. I had a look at contemporary figures from Australian government sites. Mature dry sclerophyll forests (gum trees) store carbon dioxide at the rate of 600-100 tonnes per hectare per year. There are about 130 million hectares of dry sclerophyll forest in Australia. That’s, conservatively, 600 X 130 million = 78,000,000,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide absorption per year. We emit 450 million tonnes of carbon dioxide per year, let’s call that 500 million: 78 billion divided by 500 million = 156. Australia could emit 155 times more carbon dioxide than we do and still be at nett zero. That’s not taking into account grasslands or sea meadows or other forest types.
190
As I posted on the Friday Thread earlier today –
“Actually, the Australian Land Mass and Continental waters surrounding Australia absorb more CO2 than is emitted by Human activity in Australia.
This means that Australia is below Nut Zero and is in fact in a positive position being a Net Absorber of CO2.
So, the new Mantra (a play on ‘Welcome to Country’) should be – “Welcome to Below Nut Zero Country” and should be reiterated at every available time and place – Meetings, Celebrations, Weddings, Funerals, P#ss Ups, Arrivals at Airports, Ports, Train Stations, Bus Stations, the Australian Parliament every day, School days, University days, Before going to bed, When waking up, Before Siestas, etc, etc, etc……………..
What a Great place Australia is and is leading the World once again.
So, no more need for the Ruinables Madness and all those subsidies.”
150
The trouble JR, as you probably know, is the pure definition of Net Zero. Net Zero is where man made CO2 emissions are to be matched by man made sequestration technologies. Hence, the proponents of Net Zero have fooled the general public by thinking it means when man made CO2 emissions are sequestered by any means. Because there are very few efficient man-made sequestration technologies, the only functional way to achieve Net Zero is to stifle ANY man made CO2 emissions. The Australian biosphere (land mass plus sea within our territorial waters) absorbs about 15 X our CO2 emissions. Hence, if you use the more practical interpretation of the CO2 cycle, Australia has always been not only Net Zero- but minus Zero. Always has been and alway will be. The same applies to every country in the Southern Hemisphere. I can’t believe we have leading biologists, botanists and scientists in this country who let the government get away with this scam. When that fool Morrison signed up to it, the outcry should have been loud- but all we got was nothing, crickets.
130
While all forests absorb CO2, they also emit CO2. Australia has some of the best land use carbon accounting in the world (because it helps us more than most countries). But in the end, only new forest, new growth etc counts as carbon sequestration.
The natural to and fro of carbon is not considered — so if fires destroy forest it doesn’t increase our “man made emissions” but when that forest grows back, we can’t count it as a “sink”. It’s an act of God. (Even when it’s arson).
What no one accounts for yet are lakes, rivers and oceans. They can’t even pretend to do that accounting, because they don’t have the data. And since we can’t tax ocean currents or coral reefs, they probably will never collect it. Plus if our oceans have warmed slightly in 100 years, the water may have emitted more carbon than it absorbed. Though it probably depends on currents too.
So the answer to the question of whether Australia is a source or a sink is that it’s the wrong question. CO2 is not a problem.
PS: If we could say Australia was a Net Sink, you can be sure I would have said so on the blog. I did marry the lead modeler who calculated Australia’s Kyoto carbon position. 🙂
110
I posted regarding this over a month ago (plus sent it to many Govt & Opposition members) –
Here is an excerpt from the post –
Grok AI reply –
Key Points
• I acknowledge my earlier statement, “Research suggests reducing emissions in Australia could have a small but meaningful global impact, despite low current emissions,” omitted Australia’s substantial CO2 sink status, presenting an incomplete and potentially biased view.
• Australia’s sinks absorb 180–300 Mt CO2 in favorable years, offsetting ~46–77% of emissions (390 Mt CO2), making it close to net-zero in wet years, which reduces the urgency of emission reductions.
• Research suggests that while emission reductions have a small global impact, Australia’s sink strength means its net contribution to global CO2 is lower than gross emissions imply, supporting a more balanced perspective.
• The evidence leans toward Australia’s sink status being significant, and my initial statement was flawed by not fully integrating this, potentially reflecting a mainstream bias.
50
That figure for Aussie sinks looks way too low. Australia produced around 570 MT (million metric tonnes) of CO2 emissions annually, based on 2021 figures, now 390 MT (as you quoted ) The Australian biosphere ( landmass + territorial waters) in 2021 consumed 8045 MT per year. The biosphere cleaned 14x more CO2 than we produced. Based on your figures that’s now 20X. Not only are we already at Net Zero , we are in fact extremely Net Negative and have always been. Always will be. Same applies to the whole Southern Hemisphere- just ask Neville. You can also just calculate the annual average absorption of CO2 by Aussie agricultural crops (man made/ managed) and that sequestration alone almost neutralises our man made emissions.
90
Total land use for Agricultural production (crops, pasture and forestry) in Australia was 372 .7 million ha using ABS 2018 figures. Using just an extremely conservative sequester rate of 2T CO2 per ha (range 1.3-43.3) all those trees, crops and pasture annually consume over 700 MT of atmospheric CO2. Australia’s total annual man made CO2 emissions in 2018 was about 560 MT. Using your figure of 390T, that discrepency is now even greater. Net Zero is a total scam.
90
I live in a New England (Australia) city. They have moved the official weather station several times. Originally it was down in the frost laden valley near the Post Office where they all used to be in most Aussie towns. It is now located at the airport on top of the hill. I used to be able to download all the temperature records going back into 1800s from the BOM website. Can’t find them anymore.
We were always colder than most of the NE towns except for the ones at the top of the range. Now we are warmer than most on frosty mornings.
Are we one of the reference stations?
170
Should read 60X130 million = 7,800,000,000
15.5 times more CO2 than we do and still be at nett zero
80
Great graphs in the Australian as Albanese praises the investment of China and India in random power. Except while our use of coal has gone down in twenty years, China’s total coal consumption has increased 500%. In fact their nuclear generation now exceeds our entire power production. Truth is the first casualty of communism.
230
And our Slime Minister is a full-on life-long communist as documented in Trevor Loudon’s book.
Why were the Liberals silent about that before and after the election?
And why has he met Emperor Xi five times and Trump not once?
Comrade Prime Minister: Anthony Albanese’s 40-Year Alliance with Australian Communism
https://a.co/d/3jlx8cv
110
Get real, Jo. How do you expect Big Green to even pay for its personal jet fleet out of planting a few trees?
80
You probably couldn’t choose a better location than Laverton North if you wanted to see spikes in temperature. In 2024 there two major fires at different recycling facilities within a month.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-10-29/recycling-factory-fire-laverton-north/104531844
https://maribyrnonghobsonsbay.starweekly.com.au/news/laverton-north-factory-fire-contained/
The latter facility recycled batteries. The fumes would unquestionably be a threat to the health of mothers, babies and pets, as opposed to the theoretical existential threat posed by a daytime temperature increase in an industrial area.
140
UHI is misleading as it is local heat contamination due to economic development so often not urban. I live near a rural community of 20,000 or so. The airport is a temp station. It used to be surrounded by pasture and woods but now that is a mall and offices all well paved.
It should be called LHI not UHI.
121
As for planting trees, I had thought that it might reduce CO2 and cost nothing and appease the electorate. But we learned from NASA that growing trillions of trees makes no difference to CO2.
https://www.nasa.gov/technology/carbon-dioxide-fertilization-greening-earth-study-finds/
It’s not that NASA drew this conclusion. But if you analyse what they said, tree coverage in 1988 to 2014 went up 14%. And CO2 went up 14% in the same period. So more CO2 meant proportionately more trees but sequestering trillions of tons of Co2 made no difference to CO2 or the growth of CO2. And this is confirmed by total CO2 over the last 50 years which shows no impact of ’emissions’ or bush fires or even the worldwide lockdown experiment, grounding tens of thousands of planes and stopping billions of cars.
And how can you sequester trillions of tons of CO2 and CO2 not go down? Because it is a constant vapour pressure and maintained by the world’s oceans in which 98% of the free CO2 gas is dissolved.
180
So CO2 emission are busted as changing CO2. And growing trees is busted. And deforestation is busted. All by NASA. Except no one in NASA draws the obvious conclusion. And Australian Politicians have made laws based on fake science growing trees changes atmospheric CO2. Or for that matter emissions from fossil fuel changes atmospheric CO2. They don’t
2011 Carbon Credits(Farming Initiative Act)
and the dependent legislation in the Safeguard Mechanism, 2023.
It boggles my mind that bureaucrats in Canberra can write and parliament can pass laws based on provably wrong, ignorant, fantasy science. Like Democratic Druids legislating human sacrifice.
180
Back in the day, before the general dumbing-down of the population (present company excepted), people knew about the urban heat island effect.
In fact, it was discovered by Luke Howard in London in 1820 although the term “urban heat island” wasn’t coined in English until 1958 by Gordon Manley. However in 1929 the German Albert Peppler used the term städtische Wärmeinsel (urban heat island in German).
You can download Luke Howard’s book “The Climate of London” for free at https://urban-climate.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/LukeHoward_Climate-of-London-V1.pdf
It is a substantial work, 285 pages and ewly typeset to modern tastes.
He was a genuine meteorologist and new far more about the climate and weather than any of today’s so-called “climate scientists”.
171
It’s interesting that Luke Howard discovered the urban heat island effect with the thermometers of the 1820’s but our Bureau of Meteorological Propaganda refuses any temperature reading before 1910 into ACORN-SAT thus likely exaggerating the warming claimed (they chose that year for a reason, even though there were adequate records before then).
160
Oops. An “n” got dropped from “newly” and a “k” got dropped from “knew”.
60
The point of the paper is that creating urban heat islands by concreting everything in a warming world is a really dumb idea. UHI will exacerbate the warming trend. Green spaces mitigate the UHI effect and this is the smart thing to do.
411
That may well have been the point of the paper. But that doesn’t mean it can’t be used to illustrate other things.
Green spaces don’t mitigate the exaggerated warming in a location that gets attributed to CO2.
150
So, why are we covering rural green spaces with millions of solar panels?
And cutting down millions of trees to install wind generators on hilltops, and to connect these distributed sources to the grid?
And building high rise buildings on former parks, golf courses and other urban open green spaces?
250
Yes Simon.
Let’s tear down the windmills and solar plantations and replace them with forests or farmland.
220
All the boxes that are cool inside at the expense of pumping heat outside can’t be helping much.
From the CBD to the burbs, we all are guilty.
How many megawatts of heat would be pumped out of one of those huge glass skyscrapers.
60
“The point of the paper is that creating urban heat islands by concreting everything in a warming world is a really dumb idea.”
Actually no.
People gathering together to keep warm is a good idea.
Probably the reason we survive since we have no fur.
I live in a little ‘heat island’ myself called a house.
Earth is a heat island.
At least the middle parts.
Also, as a Climate Change obsessed progressive, you should remember that without ‘urban heat islands’ you have no political voter base for support of affluence induced neurotic manipulative activist causes.
No man would be able to be a mom and you would have to make your own kombucha.
40
For example of urban ‘affluence induced neurotic manipulative activist’…
see recent viral video of DC Justice Department employee (now fired) throwing a Subway submarine sandwich at a police officer.
As I’ve said, will there be enough sharks left for jumping?
00
And what does one find at an airport, hundreds of dirty great kero burning engines and kilometers of heat absorbing runways and taxiways.
190
Cities and industrial areas have always been traps for extra CO2 and heat compared to other areas with lower concentrations of industrial populations. My 60yo Alexander Boden “Introduction To Science”, 1964 edition, says this. The real problem is that the warming fanatics want to con us that these higher concentrations of heat and CO2 apply to everywhere else on the planet.
120
At airports, much CO2 is found,
Which all0ws plants to profusely abound,
Let the runways be clear,
And the plant life be near,
Cooled by waters that nourish the ground.
100
So how much warming should we expect in the future and can we really change anything?
Recently US Energy Secretary Dr Chris Wright unleashed 5 of the best and most experienced Scientists to tell us the truth.
Andrew Bolt last night interviewed Dr Steve Koonin to answer some very basic questions about our so called Climate Emergency and of course their report has told the truth for a change.
It’s 10.5 minutes long but made me feel a lot better and Dr Koonin is very bright and has won 5 out of six debates and had a draw with his friend Dr Roger Pielke jr.
Please have a look if you have the time.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LckkSXkr4Nk
90
As the first comment to the youtube video says –
“The further a society drifts from truth, the more it will hate those who speak it”
George Orwell
80
A few years ago there were articles about
“vegetation covered buildings” .
This post made me do a search with “images” for a refresher.
Give it a try.
70
Tree covered buildings are a level above ivy/creeper/shrubs! Tree covered buildings! For Forests sake.
20
Careful!
Tom Lehrer drew attention to
“Ivy covered professors in ivy covered halls”
50
Yes John, in the latter years of my landscape design and build business, we concentrated on, and specialised in, the installation of what is now known as ‘green infrastructure’, or green roofs. I became aware of this technology several decades ago, on a trip back to England, and as someone involved in the trade, was intrigued as to how it was possible to successfully grow plants on rooftops.
I researched the subject and developed systems to grow green roofs in Australia, a place with a climate hostile to established methods.
There are many benefits, including stormwater runoff mitigation, insulation, sound proofing, habitat creation, etc. I could not see a downside.
When ‘green infrastructure’ (terrible terminology) finally became more accepted in this country, I was sought out by architects, building designers, etc. to advise and provide installation services, and I wrote modules and taught the subject up to diploma level.
However, like many other fields, it eventually became the domain of left – leaning academic institutions and councils who used it to further enhance their ‘green’ credentials. That’s when I decided it was time to bail out and retire (mostly).
60
In Medieval times, knights of old were seeking ‘shrubberies’ and shrubbers. I never understood why? The knights who way Ni in particular.
20
Search for anything on the climatic cooling effect of evaporation from plants!
Now look for anything on the change in plant levels as urban areas spread out.
Hard to find? Impossible to find? Why? Because changes in LOCAL evaporation not only account for all so called “global warming”, the fact that water us not evaporating also accounts to some extent for the increased flooding many places see.
50
Air temperature? Where?
There is such a focus on the earth covered areas, the inhabited areas, which is only 26% of the surface at most. And land based plants, which are at most equal to the plants in the ocean which produce at least half the oxygen and feed all the fish. And the air, which is just what is not in the ocean as fish breathe too. Plus the tiny 2% of CO2 which is in the air with 98% in the water.
All our life, living things, all water, rain, storms, climate comes from the vast oceans which contains 99.9% of all stored surface heat and never freeze or boil. Weather comes and goes. It’s a surface effect, no more.
But to listen to Green activists, the only animals which matter are humans, the only places which matter are where humans live and all weather comes exclusively lfrom the atmosphere. It’s just not true. A form of megalomania. All life, all water, all weather comes from the oceans. So what don’t climate scientists model at all? The oceans. Little things like El Nino.
And what controls all life on earth? The sun and the oceans. Everything else is effect, not cause. Especially air temperature at ground level. But that’s an objective scientist’s point of view.
Climate Change is a very silly and very destructive religion, mad people or people driven mad, fearing the imminent end of the world. As usual. Despite overwhelming evidence it’s not true, especially after an alleged 250 years of this Rapid Global Warming. So like the Dark Ages religions. God’s punishment requiring sacrifices.
And who’s pushing this? The people who want wealth and power. As usual. Let’s call them the United Nations and China. Supported by their trained politicians. Let’s call them communists and climatebaggers.
60
We put most of our thermometers at airports which awkwardly turn out to be 2.5 degrees Celsius warmer than surrounding areas, and presumably warmer than they were 120 years ago when there wasn’t 3 square kilometers of concrete runway there sitting in the sun.
Plus the burning of huge amounts of jet fuel during taxiing and takeoff.
40
Going by the scale on your map, Australia is about 500 km across.
20
FWIW
See! You can get used to it!
“Study: Europeans can easily adapt to rising temperatures.”
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2025/08/13/study-europeans-can-easily-adapt-to-rising-temperatures/
20
The real question is why people choose to live in cold places. And it is nothing to do with preferring cold weather.
It seems any question of adaption is forbidden. So now we will have people around the world dying of cold to prevent global warming. Just because people in the UK think 30C is a midsummer heat wave. Recently the UK announced three scary heat waves in just two weeks. Oh, the humanity.
40
And a drought is six days without rain. Or a patch of brown grass in the lawn.
40
And the population have summer holidays in places where 30C is the common temperature. The whole idea of (Rapid) Global Warming is hardly a threat anywhere. Perhaps it is the fear of not being able to go skiing in winter?
50
The optimum temperature is 15 degrees C, doncha know.
There are endless studies from Chicago and northern Europe which prove this.
00
All the experts including the sceptics assume that the world is warming and the difference between the alarmists and sceptics is whether it’s dangerous. I have always believed an audit of the B’s temperatures need to be made and an investigation into the homogenisation adjustments made transparent. I suspect that it is problematic that there has been any warming at all and if the adjustment was made for the urban heat island effect the 1930s would be clearly the hottest decade in the last 100 years. The blatant manipulation of data to suit the climate narrative should have consequences and those responsible should be doing jail time.
30