We can also do from SE raw. And we can also show how rural stations look. Frederik does like them. Climate agenda is measured in downtowns of the capitals?
Not sure if it’s normal that amateurs now have to lecture academics…?
The downtown station logs hourly=no need for even Ekholm, no need for re-sampling. Does Frederik even know what we mean? Nothing is adjusted. Also PHA leaves it as is as it only detects breakpoints (not UHI).
Yes. Hausfather & Berkeley Earth are pushing it.
But it’s not a measurement. Not one station shows that.
It’s what you get when you aggregate rot over time.
On the left: 8 pristine USCRN sites. Same y-scale.
Now look what they did.👇
2/ Was wir hier sehen: Die Datenreihe ist ein Komposit (sehr beliebt, wenig seroes, in der Klima-„Wissenschaft“).
Die Messmethode (und mehr) hat sich verändert – von analogen zu digitalen Sensoren. Die Entropie der Nachkommastellen zeigt das – deutlich.
1/ The result is simply wrong.
There are 2 stations there — we can compare.
🟥Red: Carlwood
🟩Green: Gatewick
We clearly see the overshoot.
Moreover: They’re using subhourly spikes (error) from a single, low-inertia sensor.
Total incompetence.
2/ Using TMAX from a low-quality single urban sensor is already peak incompetence.
But they go further — they take the spikes.
Even top-tier stations like USCRN show 2–3°C error at peak forcing.
USCRN uses triple sensors — worst spikes get voted out.
3/ The UK has nothing like the USCRN triple-sensor setup.
So when two nearby stations disagree, the right move is simple:
Discard the implausible one — in this case, Charlwood.
What does the agenda-captured @metoffice do?
They run with the error.
They hoax the public.
ISO9001🤡
Not a high-quality reference site like
Valentia Observatory (Ireland) or h-USCRN sites.
But: Lower urban bias than cities like Kyoto or Tokyo. It starts to show the well known flatliner we see at stable sites.
3/ To see it better, here’s 4 months side by side:
🟥 Kyoto
⬛️ Tokyo
🟦 Suttsu
This is man-made. The T trend is just unrelated to climate. It measures the site and environment change. Suttsu as expected least impacted. But it still is.
The red areas are fully man-made—built or cultivated.
You cannot measure climate anywhere near them.
And MODIS still misses a lot.
In reality, it’s worse.
When we inspected what @BerkeleyEA calls “rural”?
Almost all those stations are worthless
Imagine a field looks like it does on the left…alive.
And later, like the right. Dead and brown.
Still think you'll measure the same 2m temperature?
Or might that just—possibly—have a major impact as the surroundings changed? GPT estimates 3C. It's not wrong.
We now combine MODIS 🟥 and P2023A 🟪 (10m resolution).
Look: MODIS misses entire urban zones— Ireland. Or Liverpool.
And yet @hausfath and @BerkeleyEarth built their “rural” claims on MODIS junk.
Shameful deception.
The paper needs a retraction.